Volume 7, Tome II: Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries - Theology (Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources) [1 ed.] 9780754668732, 0754668738

Citation preview

KierKegaard and His danisH Contemporaries tome ii: tHeology

Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources Volume 7, Tome II

Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources is a publication of the søren Kierkegaard research Centre

General Editor Jon stewart Søren Kierkegaard Research Centre, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Editorial Board Katalin nun peter ŠaJda Advisory Board istvÁn CzaKÓ Finn gredal Jensen david d. possen HeiKo sCHulz

This volume was published with the generous financial support of the danish agency for science, technology and innovation

Kierkegaard and His danish Contemporaries tome ii: theology

Edited by Jon stewart

First published 2009 by Ashgate Publishing

Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Jon stewart and the contributors 2009 Jon stewart has asserted his right under the Copyright, designs and patents act, 1988, to be identified as the editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Kierkegaard and his danish contemporaries. tome 2, theology. – (Kierkegaard research : sources, reception and resources ; v. 7) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855. 2. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855– Friends and associates. 3. philosophy, danish–19th century. 4. philosophy and religion–denmark–History–19th century. i. series ii. stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) 198.9–dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kierkegaard and his danish contemporaries / [edited by] Jon stewart. p. cm. — (Kierkegaard research: sources, reception, and resources ; v. 7) includes bibliographical references and indexes. isBn 978-0-7546-6873-2 (hardcover : t. 2 : alk. paper) 1. Kierkegaard, søren, 1813–1855—sources. 2. denmark—intellectual life —19th century. i. stewart, Jon (Jon Bartley) B4377 .K512 198’.9—dc22 isBn 13: 978-0-7546-6873-2 (hbk) Cover design by Katalin nun.

2009014986

Contents List of Contributors List of Abbreviations adolph peter adler: a stumbling-Block and an inspiration for Kierkegaard Carl Henrik Koch

vii ix

1

nicolai edinger Balle: the reception of His Lærebog in denmark and in Kierkegaard’s authorship Christopher B. Barnett

23

Henrik nicolai Clausen: the voice of urbane rationalism Hugh S. Pyper

41

magnús eiríksson: an opponent of martensen and an unwelcome ally of Kierkegaard Gerhard Schreiber

49

nicolai Frederik severin grundtvig: the matchless giant Anders Holm

95

Hans Frederik Helveg: a receptive grundtvigian Søren Jensen

153

peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage Thorkild C. Lyby

189

Jacob Christian lindberg: an acceptable grundtvigian Søren Jensen

211

vi

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

Hans lassen martensen: a speculative theologian determining the agenda of the day Curtis L. Thompson

229

Jakob peter mynster: a guiding thread in Kierkegaard’s authorship? Christian Fink Tolstrup

267

Just H.v. paulli: mynster’s son-in-law Søren Jensen

289

andreas gottlob rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s idea of an “orthodox” theologian Søren Jensen

303

eggert Christopher tryde: A Mediator of Christianity and a Representative of the Official Christendom Jon Stewart

335

Index of Persons Index of Subjects

355 361

list of Contributors Christopher B. Barnett, c/o søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. Anders Holm, the theological Faculty, aarhus university, tåsingegade 3, 8000 Århus, denmark. Søren Jensen, ellevang Kirke, Byløkken 27, 8240 risskov, denmark. Carl Henrik Koch, department of media, Cognition and Communication, Faculty of Humanities, university of Copenhagen, njalsgade 80, 2300 Copenhagen s, denmark. Thorkild C. Lyby, c/o søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. Hugh S. Pyper, Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Arts Tower, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK. Gerhard Schreiber, søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. Jon Stewart, søren Kierkegaard research Centre, Farvergade 27 d, 1463 Copenhagen K, denmark. Curtis L. Thompson, thiel College, 75 College avenue, greenville, pa 161252181, usa. Christian Fink Tolstrup, Holte Kirke, skovlodden 17, 2840 Holte, denmark.

list of abbreviations Danish Abbreviations B&A

Breve og Aktstykker vedrørende Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1953–54.

Bl.art.

S. Kierkegaard’s Bladartikler, med Bilag samlede efter Forfatterens Død, udgivne som Supplement til hans øvrige Skrifter, ed. by rasmus nielsen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1857.

EP

Af Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer, vols. 1–9, ed. by H.p. Barfod and Hermann gottsched, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1869–81.

Pap.

Søren Kierkegaards Papirer, vols. i to Xi–3, ed. by peter andreas Heiberg, victor Kuhr and einer torsting, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel, nordisk Forlag, 1909–48; second, expanded ed., vols. i to Xi–3, by niels thulstrup, vols. Xii to Xiii supplementary volumes, ed. by niels thulstrup, vols. Xiv to Xvi index by niels Jørgen Cappelørn, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1968–78.

SKS

Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, vols. 1-28, K1-K28, ed. by niels Jørgen Cappelørn, Joakim garff, Jette Knudsen, Johnny Kondrup, alastair mcKinnon and Finn Hauberg mortensen, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1997ff.

SV1

Samlede Værker, ed. by a.B. drachmann, Johan ludvig Heiberg and H.o. lange, vols. i–Xiv, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1901– 06. English Abbreviations

AN

Armed Neutrality, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1998.

AR

On Authority and Revelation, The Book on Adler, trans. by walter lowrie, princeton: princeton university press 1955.

x

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

ASKB

The Auctioneer’s Sales Record of the Library of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by H. p. rohde, Copenhagen: the royal library 1967.

BA

The Book on Adler, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1998.

C

The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1997.

CA

The Concept of Anxiety, trans. by reidar thomte in collaboration with albert B. anderson, princeton: princeton university press 1980.

CD

Christian Discourses, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1997.

CI

The Concept of Irony, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1989.

CIC

The Concept of Irony, trans. with an introduction and notes by lee m. Capel, london: Collins 1966.

COR

The Corsair Affair; Articles Related to the Writings, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1982.

CUP1

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, vol. 1, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1992.

CUP2

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, vol. 2, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1992.

EO1

Either/Or, part i, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1987.

EO2

Either/Or, part ii, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1987.

EOP

Either/Or, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 1992.

EPW

Early Polemical Writings, among others: From the Papers of One Still Living; Articles from Student Days; The Battle Between the Old and the New Soap-Cellars, trans. by Julia watkin, princeton: princeton university press 1990.

EUD

Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1990.

List of Abbreviations

xi

FSE

For Self-Examination, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1990.

FT

Fear and Trembling, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1983.

FTP

Fear and Trembling, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 1985.

JC

Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1985.

JFY

Judge for Yourself!, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1990.

JP

Søren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers, vols. 1–6, ed. and trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, assisted by gregor malantschuk (vol. 7, index and Composite Collation), Bloomington and london: indiana university press 1967–78.

KAC

Kierkegaard’s Attack upon “Christendom,” 1854–1855, trans. by walter lowrie, princeton: princeton university press 1944.

KJN

Kierkegaard’s Journals and Notebooks, vols. 1–11, ed. by niels Jørgen Cappelørn, alastair Hannay, david Kangas, Bruce H. Kirmmse, george pattison, vanessa rumble, and K. Brian söderquist, princeton and oxford: princeton university press 2007ff.

LD

Letters and Documents, trans. by Henrik rosenmeier, princeton: princeton university press 1978.

LR

A Literary Review, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 2001.

M

The Moment and Late Writings, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1998.

P

Prefaces, trans. by todd w. nichol, princeton: princeton university press 1997.

PC

Practice in Christianity, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1991.

PF

Philosophical Fragments, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1985.

xii

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

PJ

Papers and Journals: A Selection, trans. by alastair Hannay, Harmondsworth: penguin Books 1996.

PLR

Prefaces: Light Reading for Certain Classes as the Occasion May Require, trans. by william mcdonald, tallahassee: Florida state university press 1989.

PLS

Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by david F. swenson and walter lowrie, princeton: princeton university press 1941.

PV

The Point of View including On My Work as an Author, The Point of View for My Work as an Author, and Armed Neutrality, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1998.

PVL

The Point of View for My Work as an Author including On My Work as an Author, trans. by walter lowrie, new york and london: oxford university press 1939.

R

Repetition, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1983.

SBL

Notes of Schelling’s Berlin Lectures, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1989.

SLW

Stages on Life’s Way, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1988.

SUD

The Sickness unto Death, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1980.

SUDP

The Sickness unto Death, trans. by alastair Hannay, london and new york: penguin Books 1989.

TA

Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age. A Literary Review, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1978.

TD

Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1993.

UD

Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1993.

WA

Without Authority including The Lily in the Field and the Bird of the Air, Two Ethical-Religious Essays, Three Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, An Upbuilding Discourse, Two Discourses at the Communion on

List of Abbreviations

xiii

Fridays, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1997. WL

Works of Love, trans. by Howard v. Hong and edna H. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1995.

WS

Writing Sampler, trans. by todd w. nichol, princeton: princeton university press 1997.

adolph peter adler: a stumbling-Block and an inspiration for Kierkegaard Carl Henrik Koch

adolph peter adler is a well-known name in recent literature on søren Kierkegaard’s authorship. He is the only person to be treated in a severe, dialectical manner by Kierkegaard in an entire book, The Book on Adler or The Present Religious Confusion, which was, for the most part, written in the fall of 1846 and repeatedly taken up again and reworked, but yet never published by the author himself. only a reworked section of the book, namely, “on the difference between a genius and an apostle,” in which adler is not mentioned by name, was published in 1849 in Two EthicalReligious Essays under the pseudonym HH. in the book itself Kierkegaard refuted adler’s claim to have received a revelation. He argued that adler, in connection with his revelatory experience and the flood of books which followed in its wake could be characterized as a confused genius at best, and not as a person to whom divinity had revealed itself or with whom divinity had directly spoken—in other words, not an apostle. since then, few people have made a scholarly investigation of adler and this affair.1 not until 1872, three years after the issue had disappeared along with adler’s death, did Kierkegaard’s book on adler appear in its entirety in the third volume of Hans peter Barfod’s edition of Kierkegaard’s posthumous papers. in peter andreas Heiberg and victor Kuhr’s extensive edition of Kierkegaard’s papers, the adler book was printed in 1926 in volume vii–2 (Pap vii–2 B 235) with additions and emendations from 1847 in volume viii–2 (Pap viii–2 B 6). 1 The first contributions to the scholarly investigation of Adler came from Italy. alessandro Cortese published in 1968 the article, “il pastore adler della libertà religiosa in Kierkegaard,” Archivio di Filosofia, 1968, pp. 629–46. in 1976 Cornelio Fabro published his translation of Kierkegaard’s Book on Adler with an extensive introduction (Kierkegaard, Dell’ autorità e della rivelazione (“Libro su Adler”), padova: gregoriana 1976), and in 1978 there appeared Fabro’s article, “la critica di Kierkegaard alla dialettica hegeliana nel ‘libro su adler,’ ” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, series 4, no. 9, pp. 1–32. the only monograph on adler is Carl Henrik Koch’s En flue på Hegels udødelige næse eller Om Adolph Peter Adler og om Søren Kierkegaards forhold til ham, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990. recently, Jon stewart has treated adler in his Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003. a brief account of adler’s philosophical views can be found in Carl Henrik Koch, Den danske idealisme 1800–1880, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2004.

2

Carl Henrik Koch

The first person to have discussed Adler and Kierkegaard’s intense occupation with him, was Christian Jensen, who, in his book Søren Kierkegaards religiøse Udvikling from 1898, very briefly examines The Book on Adler. in the 1920s both Eduard Geismar and Christoph Schrempf included Adler in their influential monographs on Kierkegaard.2 my Habilitation from 1990 on Adler is a first attempt to understand Kierkegaard’s attack on Hegelianism and speculative theology as an assault directed at danish Hegelianism, especially at adler, who was the most prominent representative of the young danish Hegelians around 1840.3 I. adolph peter adler was born on august 29, 1812, a year before søren Kierkegaard. His father was the well-to-do merchant and later wholesaler niels adler (1785– 1871). His son, at eight years of age, was accepted at Copenhagen’s most prestigious private school, the school of Civic virtue (Borgerdydskolen), whose headmaster was the legendary michael nielsen (1776–1846).4 Kierkegaard began his school days here the following year. at one point they were in the same class together. the littérateur Frederik ludvig liebenberg (1810–94), who began at the school some years before adler, recounts in his memoirs that he, adler, and Kierkegaard were in the same class together from 1823 to 1827 and that the latter was “a quiet, peaceful, industrious boy who hardly made himself noticed.”5 this explains why adler and Kierkegaard were on informal footing, addressing each other with the informal “du” form, which was rare in the nineteenth century, even among young students of the same age. in 1831, adler began his studies at the university of Copenhagen, but only the following year did he begin work on his major, theology. after the normal four years of study, he became a theological candidate in 1836. in 1837, he travelled abroad and returned a year and a half later. in the interim Hegelianism had captivated the young students of theology at the university of Copenhagen. the reason for this was the young theologian, Hans lassen martensen (1808–84), who, in 1837, had begun his lectures on speculative dogmatics which evoked an enormous, albeit brief, enthusiasm for his version of right-Hegelian speculative theology. some of martensen’s auditors recalled later in their autobiographies their youthful enthusiasm for Hegel. one wrote the following of the word “speculative”:

eduard geismar, Søren Kierkegaard. Hans Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed, nos. 1–6, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1926–28. Christoph schrempf, Søren Kierkegaard. Eine Biographie, vols. 1–2, Jena: diederichs 1927–28. 3 Koch, En flue på Hegels udødelige næse eller Om Adolph Peter Adler og om Søren Kierkegaards forhold til ham. 4 Holger lund, Borgerdydsskolen i Kjøbenhavn 1787–1887, Copenhagen: wroblewsky 1887, pp. 124–251. 5 F.l. liebenberg, Nogle Optegnelser om mit Levned, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1894, p. 11. 2

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

3

this mystical word, which appeared with the sound of the “absolute” resounded through all of our master’s powerful statements....where it came from we did not know; it flew by like a magic trick. But once it was better understood, it proved to be the art of bringing the mysteries of Christianity into the daylight of the Concept, aided by an eclectic aggregate of german systems, as certainly as if one had an angel placed in the spirit of analysis.6

another one described the situation as follows with memory’s ironic distance to the intellectual mistakes of youth: “we had, so to speak, received a piece of furniture with three drawers, in which we easily divided everything that was discussed among us, and at bottom we believed that everything was cleared up when we had thus found the proper place in the system for the theme in question.”7 the year after søren Kierkegaard’s death in 1855, one of his followers wrote that martensen had been the center of a “philosophical dizziness” which had gripped the young students of theology such that they, instead of appropriating the highest truths with humility and inwardness, learned rather how to play ball with them. Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship, he wrote, had been directed first and foremost against this religious monstrosity.8 due to his journey abroad, adler had not been present at martensen’s lectures and later, having completed his degree in theology, was hardly involved in the excitement which the lectures had provoked among the young theology students. to be sure, prior to his trip he had been interested in the fashionable philosophy of the day, Hegelianism, but it was only after his return home that he began a more systematic study of Hegel’s system. the result was a dissertation in philosophy with the title The Isolated Subjectivity in its Most Important Forms. Part One, which was submitted and defended in 1840. a second part never appeared. the dissertation was prefaced by eleven theses in latin. adler’s dissertation is, by and large, a standard piece of the right-Hegelian school and does not really present anything original. after a brief account of the dialectic between thought and being, which serves to define the concept of “consciousness,” the concept of isolated consciousness or isolated subjectivity—which in the theses is referred to as “subjectiva abstracta,” a direct translation of Hegel’s “die abstracte Subjektivität”—is defined with respect to both being and thought. From the perspective of Hegel’s philosophy of history and philosophy of religion, adler describes the historical appearance of isolated subjectivity as a moment in the development of the individual from nature to spirit. the latter appearance is especially important since holding consciousness in isolated subjectivity makes possible the introduction into speculative theology of the concept of sin and evil. according to the Hegelian dialectic, what Hegel called the Concept, that is, the universal, is realized in the particular, which implies that the objectivity of Johannes Fibiger, Mit Liv og Levned som jeg selv har forstaaet det, ed. by K. gjellerup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1898, p. 74. 7 C. Hostrup, Erindringer fra min Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1891, p. 83. 8 H.p. Kofoed-Hansen, Dr. S. Kierkegaard mod Dr. H. Martensen, Copenhagen: C.g. iversens Forlag 1856, p. 9. 6

4

Carl Henrik Koch

the universal is negated. the particular or the individual is therefore a moment in the dialectical development of the Concept, that is, a moment in the collective historical or cultural process of development. the person’s conception of himself in his individuality and of his environment at any given point in time is therefore one moment in this development, and, as negation of the universal and objective, this negation is an expression of subjectivity. every form of subjectivity is, as a moment in the development of the Concept, valid and necessary since it is merely a phase in the self-development of the Concept or the objective. every historical moment in this development is therefore a justified, albeit not independent, part of this development. subjectivity, that is, the individual’s understanding of himself and his environment, is thus, like a moment in the world-historical development, a negation of the objective and as such implies that the human being feels alienated in the world. in this context Hegel speaks of the unhappy consciousness. as adler writes in the dissertation: “from the moment that the creature stepped forth out of the unity with the Creator, subjectivity also stepped forth out of unity with objectivity.”9 Both humanity and the individual human being must in their development re-establish the lost unity but at a higher level. if the individual now remains in a moment in his development and thereby isolates himself from it, the individual does not take up actuality into his consciousness, which implies that subjectivity loses all content. in the fact that consciousness is held firmly at a determinate stage in its historical development, for example, by understanding world history from a supernatural conception at a point in time when supernaturalism is a surpassed moment in the cultural development, it is isolated since the views that it holds do not correspond to actuality. adler calls subjectivity in this condition “isolated subjectivity.” every moment in the world-historical development is necessary and valid in a relative sense, but held firmly, it loses all validity, or as adler puts it: “when world spirit’s past moments and stages are born in individuals, they no longer have historical truth and justification.”10 the previous religious conceptions are a link in the development toward the Christianity of the nineteenth century and, as such, possess relative validity; but if they are held firmly even after they have been surpassed historically, the individual places himself in opposition world spirit, which is the force which drives historical development forward and which Hegel himself understood as an immanent force— though the theological right Hegelians understood it as divinity. when this is the case, the individual occupies at “the standpoint of evil: for evil consists precisely of holding on to the standpoint, which, seen in opposition to a higher one, ought to be sublated.”11 adolph peter adler, Den isolerede Subjectivitet i dens vigtigste Skikkelser, Copenhagen: Berlingske 1840, p. 20. 10 ibid., p. 49. 11 ibid., p. 51. the danish word “ophæve” (to sublate) is a translation of the Hegelian term “aufheben” which literally means to “lift up” but in Hegel’s usage means “to cancel” and “to preserve.” often Hegel uses “aufheben” to suggest all three of these connotations at the same time. 9

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

5

By placing oneself at the standpoint of evil, the person commits a sin, a “sin which cannot be forgiven, the sin against spirit. For one sins against spirit when one holds on to antiquated standpoints and does not pay tribute to what the new spirit has brought to the world.”12 or as we read in thesis eleven: “Homo in malis est quum retinet momentum historicum, quod evanuit,” the human being is in evil, who remains at the historical moment which is surpassed. if, for example, a person of the nineteenth century holds on to the eighteenth century’s conception of the divinity, he sins by not wanting to be what he is, namely an individual of the nineteenth century. it follows from this that a human being is saved from sin by taking up the objective, the real, into his consciousness. it is objectivity and not subjectivity which saves. to these considerations we can also add some considerations concerning revelation. regarded from what adler calls “the standpoint of the moment,” revelation is accidental and arbitrary; it seems to be in conflict with the generally accepted conception of nature and human life. therefore, “the human being of the moment” does not understand revelation: but seen from its true perspective, in adler’s words, “reproduced in time and by humanity” or mediated and taken up in human consciousness and in human culture, what appeared at the moment of revelation as something accidental is now understood as something necessary: this is true of every divine revelation since creation. every revelation would be a riddle if it did not, by eternally being reborn and reproduced in humanity’s great consciousness, show itself as the expression of necessity. every divine revelation must be viewed from this perspective; in this way, the necessity of mediation is also apparent.13

The historical moment takes on eternal significance when it is taken up in the human consciousness and human culture, that is, when it is mediated. as adler puts it in his tenth latin thesis: “Inspiratio et prophetia est mediatio necessaria,” divine inspiration, that is, revelation, and prophetic speech are necessary mediations. revelation, and hereby also the appearance of the divine in time—the life and works of Christ—only receive their full significance when they become a part of human culture. the result is that only when the individuals of the nineteenth century educate themselves in agreement with Christian culture, which they are a product of, do they become true Christians. as noted above, adler’s dissertation contains nothing original. His conception of evil corresponds exactly to Hegel’s; but, for adler, the entire doctrine of isolated subjectivity takes on a far more theological twist than for Hegel. it cannot be determined with certainty whether Kierkegaard read adler’s dissertation. the title is merely mentioned in The Book on Adler without any account of its contents,14 and it does not appear in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library. there is only one single place in his posthumous papers that can be interpreted as a possible reference to it. in 1850, Kierkegaard sketched, in the briefest possible form, speculative theology’s conception of sin. He writes in his journal that all the “more profound 12 13 14

ibid., p. 51. ibid., p. 60. Pap. viii–2 B 6, p. 12.

6

Carl Henrik Koch

thinkers” are “unanimous in locating evil in isolated subjectivity—objectivity is the saving factor.”15 He agrees that “isolated subjectivity” is evil, but he does not think that “restoration to health by means of ‘objectivity’ is a hair better; subjectivity is the way of deliverance—that is, God, as infinitely compelling subjectivity.”16 this passage can be interpreted as a reference to adler even if there is no more evidence than the fact that Kierkegaard uses the designation “isolated subjectivity,” which adler introduced in his dissertation. II. even before adler had published and defended his dissertation, he submitted a shorter article to the Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik. Here he criticized the person who, more than anyone else, presented himself as the central danish Hegelian: the poet and critic Johan ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860), who had dared to correct Hegel. According to Heiberg, the first triad of logic is not what Hegel claimed, the triad of being, nothing, and becoming, but, by contrast, the unity of being and nothing, becoming and determinate being (Dasein).17 A modification of this kind, thought adler, did violence to the structure of Hegel’s logic.18 and when the leading theologian at the university of Copenhagen, Henrik nicolai Clausen (1793–1877), criticized the young danish Hegelians in 1840 for betraying lutheran scripturalism in their attempt to make Christianity appear to be a result of a priori constructions,19 he was dismissed by adler with the remark that he was not in agreement with the most recent scholarly advances.20 a few years later, adler also criticized philosophy professor rasmus nielsen (1809–84), who had allowed himself to depart from Hegelian terminology.21 in the same year, adler’s short article on baptism was accepted in Heiberg’s journal, Intelligensblade.22 the article is a typical contribution to the attempt to make Christianity a part of the bourgeois culture of the age which martensen, for example, stood for. martensen’s theology was later characterized as a theology of mediation. it is characteristic for this period in danish cultural life— the period from around 1810 to around 1860 called the danish golden age—that leading personalities in the world of culture understood their contemporary culture as a melting pot of art, science, religion, and social life. together, these aspects of SKS 23, 49–50, nB15:71 / JP 4, 4555. ibid. 17 Johan ludvig Heiberg, “det logiske system,” Perseus, Journal for den speculative Idee, no. 2, 1838, pp. 1–45. 18 adolph peter adler, “J.l. Heiberg, det logiske system,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, pp. 474–82. 19 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Det Nye Testaments Hermeneutik, Copenhagen: schultz 1840, p. iv. 20 p. vogel [a.p. adler], Professor Clausens Dom over den hegelske Philosophi, Copenhagen: Høst og Klein 1840. 21 adolph peter adler, En Anmældelse, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842. 22 adolph peter adler, “et par Bemærkninger med Hensyn til Barnedaabens absolute gyldighed,” Intelligensblade, no. 8, Copenhagen 1842, pp. 181–90. 15 16

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

7

nineteenth-century danish cultural life were supposed to contribute to the realization of the kingdom of god. Both Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship and his later attack on what he called “Christendom”—which smoothes over the ultimate demands placed on the believer—were strongly opposed to this constitutive feature of the self-understanding of the danish golden age. adler introduced his thoughts on baptism by claiming that in the early days of Christianity, baptism presupposed a personal appropriation of the doctrine. the church was not supported by the state; Christianity did not spread and was not supported by a Christian family life. In these first days of Christianity, where strife about religious matters raged even among close relatives, it was necessary that those who were to be baptized be instructed in the Christian faith. at that time, Christ was not yet “the spirit of the age”; “the spirit had no objective form in the world,”23 that is, Christianity had not yet been taken up into historical actuality and into the consciousness of the individual. this implies that adult baptism was a necessity in the early days of Christianity. But as time passed, spirit’s immediate appearance was mediated in the historical dialectic; it became an objectively established phenomenon, and “Christianity received a kingdom on earth.”24 what had been subjective faith stepped forth objectively as the state religion. thus, education into Christianity was assured by a Christian family, a Christian community and a Christian state, and the reason for adult baptism, which existed previously for paganism, now falls away. in the Christian state, baptism is a sign that the final goal of the historical development also includes the baptized person, who is born into a Christian culture and is determined ahead of time to grow up as a Christian. therefore, child baptism, thought adler, is a necessity within the victorious church, and in baptism, the historical fate of the human being is made clear. adler’s arguments for the necessity of child baptism in the Christian state are his only real contribution to speculative theology. This wholly confirms Clausen’s conception of the right Hegelians. after having defended his dissertation, adler had begun to prepare a series of lectures on Hegel’s objective logic, that is, the doctrine of being and essence. the lecture series was to have taken place at the university of Copenhagen in winter semester 1840–41, but it is uncertain whether it was ever carried through to the end since on February 10, 1841, adler received the position of pastor for the congregations in Hasle and rutsker on the danish island of Bornholm. in 1842, he published the lectures, which represent a major work in the danish Hegel reception of the nineteenth century.25 in this book, adler gave a generally correct presentation of the main lines of Hegel’s objective logic. For the most part, he paraphrases Hegel’s text and on occasion there are straightforward translations from the Science of Logic. However, adler’s presentation is far more theologically colored than Hegel’s. For example, in his criticism of Johann gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814), he claims that the full content of ibid., p. 184 and p. 183. ibid., p. 184. 25 adolph peter adler, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842. 23 24

8

Carl Henrik Koch

Christianity is only given when it is conceived as an immediate unity of thought and being or as “the word in the flesh”;26 thus he says that the correct Christology—what he here calls Christianity’s “specific, substantial essence”—can only be formulated within the framework of speculative philosophy. Reflection alone, which introduces the distinction between essence and form rather than their necessary unity, cannot alone achieve a unity of thought and being. speculative knowing and the content of Christianity, however, are in harmony with one another within the framework of the Hegelian system. only from the perspective of speculation’s understanding of the word (logos) as synonymous with thinking, which unites itself with being, can the creation and “the miracles of Christ by means of the word” be grasped. in connection with the famous Hegelian theme that quantity is transformed in quality, evident when a building gradually falls apart and suddenly appears as a ruin, for example, adler writes: “when a pious Christian is declared to be different from a pagan, it is not the abstract quality common to all which defines them but a new quality brought forth through quantity, time.”27 to be a Christian was, for adler, not a daring leap out into 70,000 fathoms, but a matter of assimilating time into oneself: that is, of reproducing in one’s consciousness the historical course of events, including the birth, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ as well as the later history of Christianity. to become a Christian was for adler—before 1842, at any rate—a human process of education. the pious pagan, for example, socrates, diverges from Christianity because the Christian receives a new quality by running through the historical course of events in his consciousness. the condition for being a Christian is thus to hold firmly to a historical fact, regardless of the fact that the temporal distance to the object of faith is eliminated in faith. adler seems to anticipate a view which was criticized by Kierkegaard two years later in Philosophical Fragments. Kierkegaard owned a copy of adler’s account of Hegel’s objective logic and quoted from it in a draft to the introduction to The Concept of Anxiety as well as in a note to this draft.28 Although the reference to Adler was omitted in the final version, there is one place in the book which can perhaps be understood as an implicit reference to adler’s work. in the “introduction” to The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard refers to the final section of the logic having “actuality” (Virkeligheden) as its heading.29 this is not the case in Hegel, if by “the logic” one understands all of Hegel’s logic and not only the objective logic. Kierkegaard’s remark may rest on the fact that he had consulted the copy he had made of the table of contents to the first part of Hegel’s Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. this consists of the subdivision of the second section of the logic, “the doctrine of essence,” the last section of which has the heading “actuality” (Die Wirklichkeit). this concludes the presentation of the objective logic in the Science of Logic and the abbreviated presentation of the objective logic which

26 27 28 29

ibid., p. 9. ibid., p. 82. Pap. v B 49.5, p. 108 and Pap. v C 4. SKS 4, 317 / CA, 9.

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

9

Hegel gives in the Encyclopaedia.30 it is, however, also possible that Kierkegaard, who had referred to adler’s objective logic in connection with his work on The Concept of Anxiety, recalled that the two final paragraphs in Adler’s presentation treated formal and real actuality. the question of the degree of Kierkegaard’s direct knowledge of Hegel’s writings has been repeatedly treated in the secondary literature.31 i myself have shown that Kierkegaard’s general knowledge of Hegelian logic could be based on a reading of secondary sources, in the first instance, Adler’s book and Karl Werder, whose lectures on logic and metaphysics in winter semester 1841–42 Kierkegaard attended,32 and whose little commentary from 1841 on Hegel’s logic he owned.33 Based on a study of the published works, it does not seem possible to make good on the claim that Kierkegaard studied Hegel’s Science of Logic or the abbreviated presentation of the logic in the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. recently, Jon stewart has shown in detail that the criticism directed against Hegel in The Concept of Anxiety is based on adler’s description of Hegel’s logic.34 instead of concluding from this evidence that Kierkegaard’s knowledge of Hegel’s logic was not based on a study of the Science of Logic and the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, but rather that his knowledge of Hegel was mediated by adler and that he thus identified Adler’s right-Hegelian presentation of the objective logic with Hegel’s own, stewart, convinced that Kierkegaard must have undertaken a study of Hegel, claims that Kierkegaard’s critique was aimed at adler. with regard to this assertion, perhaps all one can say is that such a study cannot be proven and that one cannot establish—based on a veneration for an author who does not purport to be a scholar but, if anything, to be a religious propagandist—that Kierkegaard always went to the sources. Stewart also has a problem answering two questions: first, Why would Kierkegaard criticize adler’s presentation of the objective logic? and second, why is the criticism directed against Hegel and not against adler? only the second question is answered: “the answer is that Kierkegaard uses Hegel as a kind of decoy or disguise in order to veil the true objects of his criticism.”35 But why would Kierkegaard have used this rather odd procedure, which at best can be conceived as subtle irony by identifying a little disciple with the master himself? Kierkegaard was an ironist and used irony as a literary and rhetorical tool, but he directly declared his intentions in his two accounts of his authorship (On My Work as an Author and The Point of View for My Work as an Author), but neither here nor in the posthumous papers is there any evidence that in The Concept of Anxiety Kierkegaard intended to criticize adler. i agree with stewart that Kierkegaard’s criticism of Hegelianism is in Pap. iv C 101, p. 409. Cf. the overview in Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 1–32. 32 see Kierkegaard’s notes to werder’s lectures: SKS 19, 245, not8:50. SKS 19, 246, not8:52. SKS 19, 278–82, not9:2–9. 33 Karl werder, Logik. Als Commentar und Ergänzung zu Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik, Berlin: veit u. Comp. 1841 (ASKB 867). see Koch, En Flue på Hegels udødelige næse eller Om Adolph Peter Adler og om Søren Kierkegaards forhold til ham, pp. 189–97. 34 stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 378–418. 35 ibid., p. 417. 30 31

10

Carl Henrik Koch

reality aimed at the danish-right Hegelians; but in opposition to stewart, i think that the natural conclusion is that Kierkegaard identified their version of Hegelianism with Hegelian philosophy generally. III. after having presented the objective logic, adler’s goal was to sketch the subjective logic or the logic of the concept. But one evening when he was sitting and developing his view of the origin of evil—which at first glance strikes one as a theme which lies outside the subjective logic—something happened which caused him to scrap this project and which changed his entire life. He wrote later in his “preface” to a collection of sermons published in 1843, that he realized “as if in a flash that everything depended not upon thought but upon spirit, and that an evil spirit existed.” and he continued: that same night a hideous sound descended into our room. then the Savior commanded me to get up and go in and write down these words: The first human beings could have had an eternal life, because when thought joins God’s spirit with the body, then life is eternal; when the human being joins God’s spirit with the body, then the human being is God’s child; Adam would thus have been God’s son. But they sinned. Thought immersed itself in itself without the world, without the body. It separated the spirit from the body, the spirit from the world. And when the human being himself, when thought itself separates the spirit from the body and the spirit from the world, the human being must die and the world and the body must become evil. And what becomes of the spirit? The spirit leaves the body. But God does not take it back. And it becomes his enemy. And where does it go? Back into the world. Why? It is angry with the world, which abandoned it. It is the evil spirit. And the world itself created the evil spirit. then Jesus commanded me to burn my own works and in the future to keep to the Bible.36

as he understood it, adler had received a revelation! although the words which adler claimed Christ dictated to him can hardly be said to be immediately comprehensible, nevertheless this was an account which was relatively clear, given the background of speculative theology’s doctrine of sin and evil. when thought, that is, subjectivity, deepens itself in itself and fails to incorporate the actual into itself—in adler’s words, is “without world, without the body”—it is in evil and thereby sinful. it becomes unclear, however, when adler’s conception of the sex drive, which is a central theme in his book, is set in relation to the content of the revelation.

adolph peter adler, Nogle Prædikener, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843, preface. BA, supplement, pp. 339–40.

36

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

11

in the 27th sermon, adler writes, “the sex drive is the evil spirit, and it came into the world with the evil spirit, for man abandoned the spirit of god.”37 in several of the longer and shorter works which he published after 1846—20 of them in all—the sex drive is treated in an almost identical fashion. According to the revelation, the first Adam is supposed to have united spirit with the flesh, but lost himself in his own thoughts, and for this reason the evil spirit arose. the reason for this kind of thought was that he was seduced by eve, or rather, as adler wrote in 1833, that man became lost in thought “in order to speculate about eve’s words, instead of promptly keeping to the spirit’s command.”38 in Attempt at a Brief Systematic Account of Christianity in its Logic from 1846, adler writes that man is thought, woman the body, the serpent in the account of the Fall is a image of desire which tempted eve, and from sinful, carnal love arose the evil spirit: “man is the head, the reasonable, thought. the woman is the body, the flowering, smiling body. The man’s force and seriousness should unite God’s spirit with the body, the weaker, light-minded woman.”39 when eve seduced adam, he began “to think, to become absorbed in himself—instead of keeping to the spirit’s immediate voice. it was apostasy.”40 tempted by lust, man sinned: “in sinful love, they created the evil spirit, the devil, and he returned to the world with the words: the devil is...the birth of man, it is my birth, my right.”41 this is rather confused. in The Concept of Anxiety, which was published one year after Some Sermons, Kierkegaard also offered several reflections on the sex drive. That he read the 27th sermon is evident from his underlinings and markings. in his copy of the book, which has 119 pages and contains 28 sermons and speeches, pages 93 to 106 and 117 to 119 remain uncut; in the 27th sermon, which covers pages 109 to 114, there are two underlinings in pencil. The first one comes on page 114 where Adler, with an implicit reference to galatians 4:21ff., writes: “drive out the servant woman but not the free woman. everything in the name of Jesus! Keep yourself for the free woman!” Kierkegaard here underlined the words “not the free” and “Keep yourself for the free” and has marked the passage with a line. the numerous underlinings and markings in Attempt at a Brief Systematic Account of Christianity in its Logic from 1846 show that Kierkegaard also studied this work extensively. For example, in the aforementioned quotation, “to think, to become absorbed in himself...,” he has underlined the sentence after the dash, and has underlined the word “immediate” twice. underlinings and markings in two other books which adler published in 1846 show that Kierkegaard studied them as well.42 ibid., p. 111. adolph peter adler, Momenter med Hensyn til Forløsningsværket i Jesu, logisk fremstillet, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1853, p. 71, note. 39 adolph peter adler, Forsøg til en kort systematisk Fremstilling af Christendommen i dens Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846, p. 5. 40 ibid., p. 8, note **. 41 ibid., p. 30. 42 prior to Forsøg til en kort systematisk Fremstilling af Christendommen i dens Logik adler published in June 1846 Studier og Exempler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel, Theologiske Studier, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 and Nogle Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel. 37 38

12

Carl Henrik Koch

adler’s “preface” to the collection of sermons and, more importantly, his performance at the pulpit in his churches in Hasle and rutsker—where, according to his superior, the rural dean on the island of Bornholm, he announced his revelation with a wild look and violent expression—led the church authorities to intervene in the matter, though he appeared entirely normal in his daily life as soon as he left the pulpit. He was suspended from his office in January 1844 and dismissed in August 1845. In the same year, he published the official documents surrounding the case. In June 1846, he published four books, which, naturally enough, evoked Kierkegaard’s interest. in the same month, Kierkegaard bought adler’s four books, and, in august, he purchased adler’s account of his dismissal. during the months that followed, he seems to have been exercised by the “adler phenomenon.” the result was The Book on Adler. But as early as 1843, Kierkegaard had noticed that something had happened to adler. His former schoolmate had been in Copenhagen in connection with the publication of Some Sermons, and it is possible that he visited Kierkegaard, who on June 29 wrote to his brother peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88): you know there is a magister adler in town, who became a pastor on Bornholm, a zealous Hegelian. He has come here to publish some sermons in which he will probably advocate a movement in the direction of orthodoxy. He has a good head on him and has considerable experience in many casibus of life, but at the moment he is a little overwrought. nevertheless it is always possible that this is a phenomenon worth paying attention to.43

Kierkegaard’s distant relative, philosopher Hans Brøchner (1820–75), writes in his “recollections of søren Kierkegaard,” which was published in 1876, that Kierkegaard, “at the time when adler’s mental disturbances began,” had told him of a visit by adler: one day adler came to Kierkegaard with a work he had published and talked to him for a long time about both of their activities as religious writers. adler made it clear to Kierkegaard that he viewed him [Kierkegaard] as a sort of John the Baptist in relation to himself, who, since he had received the direct revelation, was the genuine messiah. i still remember the smile with which Kierkegaard told me that he replied to adler that he was completely satisfied with the position that Adler assigned to him: he found it a very respectable function to be a John the Baptist and had no aspirations to be a messiah. during the same visit, adler read aloud a large portion of his work to Kierkegaard; some of it he read in his ordinary voice, the rest in a strange whisper. Kierkegaard permitted himself to remark that he could not find any new revelation in Adler’s work, to which adler replied: “then i will come to you again this evening and read all of it to you in this voice (the whisper), and then you shall see, it will become clear to you.” Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard’s underlinings and markings in the first three of these are published in Pap. vii–2 B 237–9, pp. 234–59. 43 B&A, 1, p. 122 / LD, 155–7, letter 83.

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

13

was much amused by this conviction of adler’s that the variation in his voice could give the writings greater significance.44

Kierkegaard himself used the episode about the variation in adler’s voice in The Book on Adler, where he wrote that adler must have desired that his reader would be moved to ecstasy, not to quiet reflection, and continued: in a way it would be quite consistent if adler, by analogy with magicians and conjurers, recommended and prescribed certain rituals, that at the stroke of twelve at night one should get up, then walk around the room three times, then take the book and open it... then read the single passage, first in a soft voice, and then let the voice rise to its peak, and then again downward.45

the book which adler read aloud to Kierkegaard could hardly have been Some Sermons, which appeared on July 4, 1843. Kierkegaard’s letter to his brother had been written a month earlier, and only in the course of the fall can one, for Kierkegaard’s part, speak of a real religious authorship. admittedly, Two Edifying Discourses appeared on may 16, 1843, but Fear and Trembling, Repetition, and Three Edifying Discourses were published on october 16, and Four Edifying Discourses appeared on december 6. since adler published a small volume, Studies, on december 12, in which he treats the main content of his revelation, everything speaks for the fact that this was the work which he read aloud to Kierkegaard. in this book, both god and Christ are ascribed many statements; take the following passage, for example: “Before the foundation of the world was laid, god said to Jesus: should man abandon my spirit, then remember: god can give the body back to the earth. and Jesus said: he will. and god said: you are my son, i gave birth to you today.”46 It is not difficult to imagine one reading a passage like this aloud with various tones of voice, perhaps like a kind of miniature play. in The Book on Adler Kierkegaard concealed that he had any great familiarity with adler. He writes, for example, that he “completely renounces any private view of magister adler, for which i have no data at all.”47 By contrast, in his journal he expresses concern for adler. thus, shortly after august 16, 1847, he wrote: “i do not at all like this whole business with adler. i am in truth all too inclined to keep adler afloat. We need dynamic personalities, unselfish persons who are not immersed and exhausted in endless consideration for job, wife, and children.”48 Kierkegaard also considered writing to adler to ask him to renounce what he said in the “preface” to Some Sermons. this suggests that Kierkegaard believed that he would have been able to convince adler to take such a step, despite the fact that church authorities were unsuccessful in this endeavor. He also feared that if The Book on Adler were published, it would have too strong an effect upon adler and considered dividing it 44 Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 1996, pp. 234–5. 45 Pap. vii–2, B 235, p. 171 / BA, 296. 46 adolph peter adler, Studier, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843, p. 143. 47 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 178 / BA, 92. 48 SKS 20, 196, nB2:138 / BA, supplement, p. 224.

14

Carl Henrik Koch

up such that only the principle ideas would be published and all references to adler would be erased, which was indeed the final result. He would thereby be freed from the cruelty of “slaying a person that way.”49 on december 1, 1847, The Book on Adler seems to have been finished—although Kierkegaard continued to work on it—but he foresaw that if it were published, the unfortunate thing would be “that one gets involved with this confused person who has nothing to do and presumably therefore will write and write....no, rather let adler go his way. then the book will be recast as a series of essays.”50 and that is what it became. Formally, it was the content of Some Sermons and Studies which spelled the downfall of adler. prior to his dismissal, he had received a letter in which the Bishop of zealand, Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854), posed four questions. First, the bishop asked if he would admit that he was in an exalted and confused mental state when he wrote and published Some Sermons and Studies, which adler had to deny since he believed that what he had written made perfect sense. in the second question, the implicit request was that he renounce his claim to have received a revelation. adler’s response can perhaps be conceived as evasive, since he now seems to conceive his revelation experience as an event which made him a believer and thus saved him in a miraculous fashion; at the same time he wrote that from his description of the course of the events of that memorable night, it must be clear to everyone “to which gospel and to which revelations i subscribe and have taught others to subscribe.”51 the third question posed to adler aimed at getting him to acknowledge that in the two works there were propositions which were in conflict with Christian dogmatics: first, the claim that the earth was originally good and second, the claim that the sex drive is the evil spirit that is spoken of in the words dictated by Christ. Finally, he was asked whether he would admit that there were various propositions which were offensive and inappropriate. in answer to these two questions, adler referred to a statement of support which 115 members of his congregation had submitted to the church authorities in 1844. They testified here that there had always been “a sincere Christian spirit which pervaded all his discourses and sermons.”52 the result was that mynster was obliged to maintain the view that adler was still in a confused mental state and could therefore not be entrusted with the responsibility for a congregation. adler was hereafter dismissed. IV. in an entry from 1847 under the heading, “For the preface,” a reference to a possible preface to The Book on Adler, Kierkegaard wrote: in this way i am separated from this book. it is, which will seem strange to many, it is actually an upbuilding book—for the one who understands it; and, which will seem SKS 20, 201, nB2:150 / BA, Supplement, p. 225. (Translation slightly modified.) SKS 20, 264, nB3:38 / BA, Supplement, p. 225. (Translation slightly modified.) 51 adolph peter adler, Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845, p. 18. BA, supplement, p. 344. 52 adler, Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, p. 6. BA, supplement, p. 342. (Translation slightly modified.) 49 50

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

15

even stranger to many, on behalf of my little bit of renown i ask no more than to have written the book, since in connection with it there is an element of good fortune that is seldom offered, since seldom, perhaps, has a person by going the wrong way come as opportunely as mag. adler has for me.53

one cannot immediately say whether Kierkegaard is here speaking in his own name. in connection with the book, he had toyed with several possible pseudonyms. the pseudonym Johannes Climacus was rejected, “since he is already marked as the one who has said he is not a Christian.” instead, he mentions petrus minor, thomas minor, vincentius minor, and ataraxius minor.54 in a variant of the “preface,” dated november 1847, he concludes: “since perhaps rarely has a person by going wrong come so opportunely as mag. adler has for vincentius minor.”55 with the 1846 publication of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, in which, as Kierkegaard himself later wrote, “the issue: becoming a Christian” is posed,56 the pseudonymous authorship is concluded for Kierkegaard—at least retrospectively. the occupation with adler and his claim to have received a revelation raised for Kierkegaard the problem of who can speak with authority in religious matters. the entire Book on Adler, Kierkegaard wrote, is an investigation of the concept of “authority.”57 Kierkegaard described—again retrospectively—his occupation with adler as a turning point in the authorship since its result, “on the difference between a genius and an apostle,” received a central place in On My Work as an Author from 1851. Kierkegaard did not regard the Two Ethical-Religious Essays to be related to the individual works of the pseudonymous authorship. He viewed them rather as related to the authorship as a whole, including the edifying discourses, by showing that he was speaking without authority: The significance of this little book (which does not stand in the authorship as much as it relates totally to the authorship and for that reason also was anonymous, in order to be kept outside entirely) is not very easy to explain without going into the whole matter. it is like a navigation mark by which one steers but, note well, in such a way that the pilot understands precisely that he is to keep a certain distance from it. It defines the boundary of the authorship. “the difference between a genius and an apostle” (essay no. 2) is: “the genius is without authority.”58

“The category of the entire authorship” is thereby defined.59 Based on this statement, there is no reason to doubt that Kierkegaard also speaks in his own name in his notes on the “preface” to The Book on Adler. in both The Book on Adler and “on the difference between a genius and an Apostle,” the genius and the apostle are defined as belonging “each in its qualitative

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Pap. viii–2 B 20, p. 73 / BA, supplement, p. 228. Pap. viii–2 B 24, p. 74 / BA, supplement, p. 224. Pap. viii–2 B 27, p. 79 / BA, 6. SV1 Xiii, 549 / PV, 63. Pap. viii–2 B 27, p. 76 / BA, 4. SV1 Xiii, 494, note / PV, 6, note. ibid.

16

Carl Henrik Koch

sphere of immanence and of transcendence.”60 Both the genius and the apostle bring something new; but whereas what is new for the genius is taken up and assimilated in general cultural development, that is, “vanishes in the human race’s general assimilation,”61 what is new for the apostle stands outside time and is neither taken up nor assimilated in this development. the appearance of the eternal in time, “the moment” in the terminology of Philosophical Fragments, is an example of something new of this kind. the genius anticipates something that will come later, and his novelty is assimilated and captured by time; by contrast, the message of the apostle remains a novelty, does not anticipate anything that comes later and therefore is not assimilated. the genius is a genius because he is gifted, for example, with unique artistic or scholarly abilities; the apostle is an apostle by the fact that he communicates a message which has been revealed to him. thus, the apostle speaks with divine authority, while the genius does not; the genius speaks with the authority which his special abilities give him a right to speak with. His insight or production is the proof of the fact that he is a genius. genius can be determined with sense certainty. By contrast, there is no sense certainty for determining whether a person is an apostle and speaks with divine authority. if there could be empirical evidence for a person being an apostle, he would be no apostle. the only proof he has is his own words. only for the person who believes in him is he an apostle. everyone who at some point brings something new into the world must therefore be either a genius or an apostle. to bring something new is to express a knowledge which is not given immediately for the educated individual at the given level of the cultural development. this novelty must then either be captured by development, that is, it must be understood as dialectical—to use an expression from Philosophical Fragments—in the direction of time and therefore subjected to the category of time, or this is not the case, and the category of novelty must then be eternity. it was this “either/or” that Kierkegaard confronted adler with: either a genius or an apostle. according to his own view, adler communicated a revelation, that is, he should be understood as speaking with divine authority. But at the same time, he writes the following in a letter to mynster from July 1845, written in order to make “as great an overture as possible”: “in the future, by working out and calmly developing the ideas over a longer time, i will see my way to have the Christian content unfold in a form more appropriate and more in accord with the specific words of the Holy scripture.”62 adler had now, in Kierkegaard’s words, forgotten “the doctrine communicated by him (by a revelation)”63 and had begun to believe that with some work, the novelty he introduced could be mediated into cultural development and thereby lose the character of novelty. Kierkegaard argued that in Some Sermons, where adler recorded his revelatory experiences, he had appeared as an apostle; in his later works, however, adler

SKS 11, 98 / WA, 94. ibid. 62 adler, Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, pp. 23–4 / BA, supplement, pp. 347–8. 63 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 133 / BA, supplement, p. 274. 60 61

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

17

seems to have understood himself as a genius.64 But, Kierkegaard writes, adler must understand these two categories—which are qualitatively different for Kierkegaard— to be one and the same.65 in this case, there arises “the total confusion that is implicit in the misrelation between Adler’s first and last statements, or, to express it more precisely, in his total ignoring of this misrelation.”66 adler wants to be both a genius and an apostle, wants to be a religious genius; but this is impossible since these are contrary determinations and no mediation is possible. adler is thus neither an apostle or in the real sense a genius—or rather, one thing indicates that he is the one, while something else indicates that he is the other. He is therefore at best a “confused genius.” “it is,” Kierkegaard wrote some years later in his journal, “frightful to see the recklessness with which the philosophers and the like introduce differentiating categories like genius, talent, etc. into religion. they have no intimation that religion is thereby abolished.”67 this was also one of the themes in “on the difference between a genius and an apostle.” as a “neither/nor,” adler is simply confused; for he believes that he is “both/and.” Kierkegaard expresses his argument against adler, as follows, on June 18, 1843: “we have before us a man, who has been called with a revelation and who has received a teaching from the savior himself, which he wrote down following the savior’s dictation.”68 on may 10, 1845, adler explained to the church authorities that he was saved in a wonderful way, and although both Some Sermons and Studies must be regarded as “a child’s first babbling, lisping, imperfect voice, I nevertheless believe that the words testify that an event through which i was deeply moved by faith did occur.”69 Finally, adler wrote to Bishop mynster on July 5, 1845: “i do not insist on regarding my Sermons (or Studies) as revelations alongside or opposite to Christianity, but i regard the words written down in the preface to Sermons and my frequently recurring dogmatic categories as reference points that have been necessary for me in order in the beginning of the enthusiasm to be able to set the Christian substance securely in a form.”70 Kierkegaard’s conclusion had to stand: adler was confused. there is hardly reason to criticize Kierkegaard’s conclusion itself; but one could say something against his argumentation. in contrast to Kierkegaard, adler did not understand the categories of “genius” and “apostle” to be contrary opposites, that is, as qualitatively different. adler took his concept of “genius” from the romantic conception of genius, which has its immediate roots in Friedrich wilhelm Joseph schelling’s (1775–1854) transcendental idealism, where the product of the genius, art, is defined as a synthesis see, for example, adolph peter adler, Studier og Exempler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846, pp. 207–8. 65 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 154 / BA, supplement, p. 281. 66 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 156 / BA, supplement, pp. 282–3. 67 SKS 23, 19, nB15:19 / JP 1, 1017. 68 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 123. 69 adler, Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, p. 18 / BA, supplement, p. 345. 70 adler, Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, p. 23 / BA, supplement, p. 347–8. 64

18

Carl Henrik Koch

of nature and freedom, as an instinctual, not intellectual presentation of the infinite.71 in the danish context, the romantic conception of genius is expressed by Henrik Steffens (1773–1845), who defined poetry as an expression of an intuition (anelse) of the infinite, and intuition, even in the finite, finds traces of the eternal.72 similarly, Frederik Christian sibbern (1785–1872) considered the expression of the genius to be grounded in “a higher instinct, whereby a higher nature’s inner power drives and steers the individual.” in the artistic act of producing, “the individual must feel himself seized and moved, and feel himself as the organ for an idea, which by its own inner force creates and forms in the person’s inward being.”73 adler’s conception of genius was similar. For him the genius was a person who has seen god’s secret; the genius is “a mouthpiece, a proclaimer, a seer, a visionary.”74 the difference between a genius and an apostle was, for adler, not a qualitative difference; Jesus spoke with God’s spirit to the genius and the genius’ communication of the message is difficult to understand; Jesus is like the sun in darkness, a sun which again has disappeared, and the genius speaks in and through this darkness. apostles are merely better than the genius at communicating what has been revealed, for “they have seen Jesus’ deeds and heard his words—they had a silhouette, and the Holy spirit reminded them of everything.”75 In his later, somewhat clearer reflections on genius, Adler characterizes it straightforwardly as a tool, and he speaks of the moment of inspiration or the moment of enthusiasm as designations for the meetings of the genius with the divine.76 Kierkegaard judges adler to be confused, based on Kierkegaard’s own definitions of the concepts and his own conviction of the existence of an unbreachable gap between the immanent and the transcendent sphere. in his treatment of adler, Kierkegaard arrived at a positive result, which he published in “on the difference between a genius and an apostle,” and a negative result, namely, that adler was simply confused. Cleverly he avoided publishing his reflections on Adler, which would have amounted to shooting flies with a canon. For Kierkegaard, who conceived himself as “a secret agent in the highest service,”77 adler was easy prey. V. On May 2, 1846, a mentally hurt Kierkegaard traveled to Berlin, fleeing the many attacks which had appeared in the satirical weekly, The Corsair, since January. on Friedrich wilhelm Joseph schelling, System des transzendentalen Idealismus (1800), ed. by r.-e. schulz, Hamburg: Felix meiner 1957, pp. 288ff. 72 Henrik steffens, Indledning til philosophiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1803, p. 31 and p. 165. 73 Frederik Christian sibbern, Om Poesie og Konst, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1834, pp. 367–8. 74 adolph peter adler, Studier og Exempler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846, p. 207. 75 ibid., p. 478. 76 adolph peter adler, Christelige Afhandlinger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1852, pp. 6–7. 77 SKS 20, 424, nB5:138 / JP 6, 6192. 71

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

19

may 16, he returned. in June, adler’s four books appeared, which Kierkegaard bought on the 12th of the same month. on august 25, he acquired adler’s small publication of the proceedings surrounding his dismissal. From the time of his return home from Berlin until september 7, there are no journal entries. Beginning June 12, Kierkegaard seems to have been occupied with adler, who, judging from the adler book, had apparently set his dialectical machine into full flight. As is clear from the discussion above, something positive came from this intense occupation with adler, namely, the definition of the difference between the genius and the apostle, and thus, the concept of “authority.” there can be no doubt that Kierkegaard regarded this result as essential for understanding his own authorship. But why did Kierkegaard find it necessary to write an entire book on Adler? Adler’s case seems to have exercised very few people; it did not catch the eye of the press, and his books do not seem to have sold particularly well. in a letter dated december 16, 1843, addressed to the danish Cancellery, the government agency concerned with domestic matters, mynster mentions that of the 1,000 copies of Some Sermons which were printed, only 50 had been sold.78 the case attracted absolutely no attention. as noted above, Kierkegaard’s interest in adler in June 1846 and the months that followed did not arise because he had just become aware of his case. as late as the spring of 1848 during his stay in Berlin, he describes adler en passant as an example of the “unhinged individuals, who have grown dizzy by throwing themselves out in the infinite” and in this context refers to the fact that Adler thought that “one could not distinguish between the voice of god and the voice of the devil.”79 Kierkegaard’s interest in “the unhinged individual” was likely merely occasioned by the fact that in June 1846, adler published no less than four books, just as Kierkegaard himself had done in the same month two years previously. adler himself, incidentally, never said that he, for his part, could not distinguish between the voice of god and the voice of the devil. perhaps Kierkegaard meant that adler seemed to be suggesting that the evil spirit had perverted human reason to such a degree that human beings can no longer distinguish the devil’s voice, that is, perverted reason, from god’s voice, that is, revelation. though adler is not mentioned in Kierkegaard’s published works, perhaps one of the reasons Kierkegaard was occupied so intensely with adler in 1846–47 was that many of the central right-Hegelian views which, in Philosophical Fragments and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, for example, are presented and attacked in a simple form, are found in adler. adler’s dissertation, which presents the doctrine of the moment and the claim that human beings are saved by objectivity, adler’s attempt to put faith in the form of the concept in his lectures on Hegel’s objective logic, and his conception of Christianity as a part of human culture, might all be stumbling-blocks which evoked Kierkegaard’s criticism of his contemporaries’ understanding of Christianity. Translated by K. Brian Soderquist rigsarkivet, Cultusministeriet, 1. kontor, 06/1–401, p. 1642. Pap. vii–1 a 143, p. 83, note / JP 2, 1348, p. 98, note. (translation slightly modified.) 78 79

Bibliography I. Adler’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library To Afhandlinger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1855 (ASKB 382). Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842 (ASKB 383). Nogle Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB 1502). Optegnelser fra en Reise, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 2041). Nogle Prædikener, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843 (ASKB u 9). Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB u 10). Studier og Exempler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 11). Theologiske Studier, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 12). Forsøg til en kort systematisk Fremstilling af Christendommen i dens Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 13). “et par Bemærkninger med Hensyn til Barnedaabens absolute gyldighed,” Intelligensblade, no. 8, 1842, ed. by J.l. Heiberg, pp. 181–90 (ASKB u 56). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Adler anonymous, [review of] “Christelige Afhandlinger ved a. p. adler,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 7, no. 361, 1852, columns 590–2 (ASKB 321–325). Helveg, Hans Frederik, “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 45, 1846, columns 729–40. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Adler Bertelsen, otto, “magister Kierkegaard og magister adler,” in his Dialogen mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990, pp. 30–4. Bork Hansen, leif, Søren Kierkegaards Hemmelighed og eksistensdialektik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1994. Carignan, maurice, “les incohérences du pastor adler,” Sciences pastorals, no. 4, 1985, pp. 109–33. Cavell, stanley, “Kierkegaard’s On Authority and Revelation,” in Kierkegaard: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. by Josiah thompson, new york: doubleday/ anchor 1972 (Modern Studies in Philosophy Series), pp. 373–93.

Adolph Peter Adler: A Stumbling-Block and an Inspiration for Kierkegaard

21

Clair, andré, “le général, l’individu, l’exception. Kierkegaard et le pasteur adler,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, no. 68, 1984, pp. 213–28. —— “La réflexion sur le cas du pasteur Adler,” in his Kierkegaard Penser le singulier, paris: les Éditions du Cerf 1993, pp. 177–83. Cortese, alessandro, “il pastore adler della liberta religiosà in Kierkegaard,” Archivio di Filosofia 1968, pp. 629–46. Fabro, Cornelio, “l’attiva oratoria dottrinale e pastorale di un vescovo luterano dell’ottocento: J.p. mynster (1755–1854),” in Richerche di storia sociale e religiosà, vol. 2, 1976, pp 73–95. —— introduction to s. Kierkegaard: Dell’ autorità e della rivelazione (“Libro su Adler”), trans. and ed. by Cornelio Fabro, padova: gregoriana 1976, pp. 7–136. —— “la critica di Kierkegaard alla dialettica hegeliana nel ‘libro su adler,’ ” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, ser. 4, no. 9, 1978, pp. 1–32. geismar, eduard, Søren Kierkegaard. Hans Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed, vols. 1–6, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1928, vol. 4, pp. 17–21. Hansen, Heidi and leif Bork Hansen, “maskineriets intrigante hemmelighed,” Kritik 83, 1988, pp. 118–28. Helveg, Hans Frederik, “en parallel mellem to profeter,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 12, 1855, columns 641–51. —— “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 12, 1855, columns 823–37 and columns 841–52. Hohlenberg, Johannes, “Concerning adler,” in his Sören Kierkegaard, trans. by t.H. Croxall, new york: pantheon Books 1954, pp. 188–202 (originally as “sagen med adler,” in his Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1940, pp. 218–32). Hustwit, ronald, “adler and the ethical. a study of Kierkegaard’s ‘on authority and revelation,’ ” Religious Studies, no. 21, 1985, pp. 331–48. Koch, Carl Henrik, En Flue på Hegels udødelige næse eller Om Adolph Peter Adler og om Søren Kierkegaards forhold til ham, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990. —— “magister adler og hans åbenbaring,” in Årbog for Københavns Stift, ed. by Jens arendt et al., Copenhagen: Københavns stift 1995, pp. 51–62. nielsen, e. Brandt, “den store bog om adler af søren Kierkegaard,” Præsteforeningens Blad, vol. 60, 1970, pp. 785–90. riis, ricardt, “problemer omkring Bogen om Adler,” Præsteforeningens Blad, no. 81, 1991, pp. 557–64. schrempf, Christoph, Sören Kierkegaard. Eine Biographie, Jena: diedrichs 1927– 28, vol. 1–2, vol. 1, pp. 271–90, vol. 2, pp. 94–100. stewart, Jon, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new york: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 378–418; pp. 524–49. —— “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin and new york: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 106–45.

22

Carl Henrik Koch

watkin, Julia, “the Criteria of ethical-religious authority: Kierkegaard and adolph adler,” ACME—Anali dell Facoltá di Lettere e Filosofia dell’ Univerità degli Studi Milano, vol. 45, 1992, pp. 27–40. —— “problemet åbenbaring i Kierkegaards Bogen om Adler,” Præsteforeningens Blad, no. 82, 1992, pp. 29–34.

nicolai edinger Balle: the reception of His Lærebog in denmark and in Kierkegaard’s authorship Christopher B. Barnett

if søren Kierkegaard can be read as a kind of novelist, whose works often resemble those in the Bildungsroman tradition,1 then it follows that a number of characters populate his authorship—characters who are imbued with certain traits associating them with a particular idea or group. perhaps one of the best known of these characters is Judge william, the pseudonymous author of the second part of Kierkegaard’s 1843 book, Either/Or. The Judge is a dedicated public official, whose letters to a younger friend, known only as “a,” constitute an argument on behalf of the ethical life. and yet, as a character, william does not merely tender a line of reasoning but, rather, personifies it. in peppering his letters with personal anecdotes, he establishes his own life as an embodiment of the ethical. thus, for instance, he underscores the importance of “home” by appealing to the happiness of his marriage,2 or, in another place, he indicates the errors of mysticism by recalling an old friend, ludvig Blackfeldt, whose mystical tendencies led to spiritual isolation and, finally, to suicide.3 with such details, Kierkegaard the novelist not only enriches william’s argument, but deepens the reader’s understanding of the Judge and of the viewpoint he represents. at the same time, however, some of Kierkegaard’s characterization has become dated over the years. what made sense in his time and place is, occasionally, obscure to the contemporary reader. indeed, this would seem to be the case with Judge william’s references to the nineteenth-century church primer, “Balle’s catechism,” which also turn up in the second part of Either/Or. “Consider [what i have written] as notes to Balle’s catechism,”4 he quips toward the end of his second epistle, entitled “the Balance between the esthetic and the ethical in the development of the Personality.” This is not the first mention of the catechism in his exposition, but it is, perhaps, the most suggestive, at once linking and subordinating his message to that of the textbook. But the significance of comments such as these slips away, if see, for example, george pattison, Kierkegaard and the Crisis of Faith, london: spCK 1997, pp. 72–3. 2 SKS 3, 85–6 / EO2, 80–1. 3 SKS 3, 234–5 / EO2, 245–6. 4 SKS 3, 305 / EO2, 323. 1

24

Christopher B. Barnett

neither the history nor the contents of Balle’s catechism is clear. thus the following article endeavors, first, to introduce the textbook’s principal author, Nicolai Edinger Balle (1744–1816), and thereby to locate the catechism vis-à-vis danish church life. in turn, it also aims to outline the subject matter of the catechism, which, according to Julia Watkin, “forms part of the spiritual tradition directly influencing Kierkegaard.”5 And, finally, it intends to explore Kierkegaard’s own appropriation of Balle’s catechism—a topic that necessitates a return to Judge william, who, as has been noted, sanctions the textbook and, in doing so, implies what Kierkegaard saw as both its strengths and its weaknesses. I. in 1799, a skirmish broke out in the Funen town of langeskov. gathering in the local churchyard, a small group of farmhands and yardmen came to blows with a number of other residents, who were defending the parish priest.6 it was a problem that had been brewing for years. ever since the death of King Christian vi (1699–1746), who had promoted an official, clergy-based Pietism as a means of improving society, traditional Christianity had declined in denmark, giving way to the enlightenment and its celebration of reason. among the urbane, this change was, in the words of the famous homme de lettres, ludvig Holberg (1684–1754), nothing short of “blissful.”7 But among the peasantry, particularly those nurtured by the edifying preaching of itinerant Herrnhutist “emissaries,” the theological rationalism inspired by the enlightenment was viewed increasingly as a threat. indeed, it was this perception that led to the above-mentioned fight in Langeskov, which, in part, was precipitated by the introduction of two rationalist church books: Textbook in the Evangelical Christian Religion,8 authorized in 1794, and Evangelical Christian Hymn Book,9 authorized in 1798. the leading force behind both of these works was the theologian n.e. Balle. who, exactly, was Balle? and why did he invite such controversy? Born on the island of lolland, Balle later migrated to zealand, taking a place at the university of Copenhagen in 1762. after graduating in 1765, he spent three years in germany, Julia watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” in Either/Or Part II, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1995 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 4), pp. 113–24; p. 115. this essay is an english translation of an earlier article, viz., Julia watkin, “Kierkegaard og Balle,” in Kierkegaard inspiration: En antologi, ed. by Birgit Bertung, paul müller, Fritz norman and Julia watkin, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), pp. 35–46. 6 ole Feldbæk, Den lange fred: 1700–1800, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1990 (Gyldendal og Politikens Danmarkshistorie, vol. 9), p. 309. 7 Quoted from martin schwarz lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2004, p. 192. 8 nicolai edinger Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion indrettet til Brug i de danske Skoler, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1840. 9 nicolai edinger Balle, Evangelisk-christelig Psalmebog, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: Johan Frederik schultz 1793–95. 5

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 25

where he further acquainted himself with the disciplines that, at the time, were having a great impact on theological studies—in particular, philology and history.10 although he earned recognition during this period, receiving, among other things, an offer to teach at göttingen university, Balle nevertheless returned to Copenhagen in 1770. He took a pastorate in northern Jutland a year later, only to return to Copenhagen in 1772 at the behest of his friend, the statesman ove Høegh-guldberg (1731–1808). appointed professor of theology—a position he held from march 1772 until June 1783—Balle “was greeted with expectancy by the younger generation,”11 who appreciated his attempts to situate lutheran doctrine within the modern philosophical framework of Christian wolff (1679–1754). eventually, these years of hard work, which also saw him tackle subjects such as biblical interpretation and church history, did not go unrewarded: in 1783, he was appointed bishop of zealand. It was at that time, however, that Balle’s path grew far more difficult, for, in the words of martin schwarz lausten, the danish church was entering its “most critical period since the reformation.”12 during Balle’s years as a professor, Høeghguldberg had used state power to restrain the radical, anti-ecclesial tendencies that threatened to gain traction in Denmark. Yet, upon his removal from office in April 1784, the state’s protective stance—exercised principally through censorship—also passed, leaving the church open to attacks from those with “radical ‘enlightenment’ tendencies.”13 Particularly after 1790, polemical journals, edited by figures such as Conrad malthe møller (1771–1834), otto Horrebow (1769–1823), and Baron Frederik Christian wedel-Jarlsberg (1757–1831), began to appear, generally arguing that the Enlightenment had rendered dogmatic theology superfluous.14 what the Bible offers, such critics insisted, is not a series of supernatural doctrines, but, rather, moral instruction for the betterment of human society. Characteristic in this connection was Jarlsberg’s suggestion that, when the need for clergy finally disappears, they should be replaced by “folk teachers,” “who could educate people in the laws of the land and work as justices of the peace.”15 the state Church, on the whole, struggled to respond to such criticisms, though two persons emerged as leaders. The first was the court preacher Christian Bastholm (1740–1819), who sympathized with the “radical” critics in many respects, but, nevertheless, argued that church reform was preferable to church annihilation. in his view, Christ’s ethical emphasis means that the church is, fundamentally, an agent of “public utility.”16 But many people, repelled by old-fashioned doctrines and tiresome worship services, failed to recognize its moral foundation. thus Bastholm proposed liturgical reforms, and he recommended that preachers familiarize themselves with michael neiiendam, “Balle,” in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–27, ed. by povl engelstoft, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1933–44, vol. 2, pp. 45–51. 11 ibid., p. 46. 12 lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, p. 199. 13 J. oskar andersen, Survey of the History of the Church in Denmark, Copenhagen: o. lohse 1930, p. 38. 14 lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, p. 199. 15 ibid., p. 199. 16 ibid., p. 202. 10

26

Christopher B. Barnett

the art of rhetoric.17 moreover, in 1785, he published a new catechism, A Religious Book for the Youth,18 which was characterized by “general religiosity and a rather extensive teaching about duty.”19 the second, and most important, church leader during this period was n.e. Balle. in contrast to the day’s radicals, Balle was convinced neither that revelation opposed reason nor that biblical criticism would prove scripture unessential. Hence, in 1793, he began holding weekly Bible talks in Copenhagen; these drew large crowds, and, upon the announcement of their publication, over 35,000 persons became subscribers.20 at the same time, however, Balle did not wholly oppose those critical of the church. History, he conceded, was entering a new epoch, and thus it was necessary that the church adapt alongside it. to that end, he followed Bastholm’s lead and identified liturgical and instructional reforms as particularly important. In 1785, Balle started work on a new catechism, and, when Bastholm’s version attracted controversy, the two men labored together to produce a more palatable version.21 it was finally issued in 1791 and, as noted above, entitled Textbook in the Evangelical Christian Religion.22 Three years later, it became the official catechism of the Danish state Church, replacing 1737’s Truth for Piety,23 which had been authored by the Halle pietist, erik pontoppidan (1698–1764). organizationally, the new textbook—which came to be known simply as “Balle’s catechism” (Balles Lærebog)—was a major advance over its predecessor. whereas pontoppidan’s text is unwieldy, consisting of 759 questions and answers, Balle’s catechism “is a small pocket book of 120 pages divided into eight chapters with clearly expressed points.”24 moreover, it contains a few “reminders for teachers” and, in later editions, interleaved blank pages, “so that the reader can make written notes in the book.”25 these improvements, in turn, seem to have facilitated the popularity of the catechism. after all, it sold well even before its authorization, and, eventually, it became “the most widely read book of the time after the aBC and the Bible.”26 and yet, if Balle’s catechism had a general appeal, satisfying those who wanted to see traditional Christianity stamped—but not destroyed—by enlightenment ideals of duty and reason, it suited “neither old-fashioned believers nor liberals.”27 ibid., p. 201; p. 204. Christian Bastholm, Religions-Bog for Ungdommen tilligemed Betragtninger over saadan en Bogs nyttigste Indretning, Copenhagen: gyldendals Forlag 1785. 19 niels thulstrup, Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1984 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 13), p. 63. 20 lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, p. 199. 21 thulstrup, Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, p. 63. 22 nicolai edinger Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion indrettet til Brug i de danske Skoler, Copenhagen: schultz 1791. 23 erik pontoppidan, Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed, Copenhagen: waysenhuses Bogtrykkerie 1737. 24 watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” p. 114. 25 ibid., pp. 114–15. 26 ibid., p. 114. 27 neiiendam, “Balle,” p. 48. 17 18

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 27

their displeasure had to do with the via media taken by the catechism. For instance, the textbook’s sixth chapter, which concerns devotional and, most prominently, social duties, comprises nearly a third of the total work. thus it betrays Bastholm’s influence and, accordingly, makes overtures to those doubtful of the church’s public usefulness. Furthermore, this emphasis on duty follows from another “rationalistic change in the dogmatic tradition”28 in the third chapter, which involves the doctrine of sin, it is explained that “people are not as good as they ought to be,”29 inasmuch as they “do not use their reason for wholesome reflection.”30 But this misuse of reason does not mean that human beings are utterly corrupt. By god’s grace, sin has been unable to eradicate humankind’s “prevailing desire for blessedness”31 and “feeling of right and wrong.”32 although not pelagian, these statements are nevertheless conspicuous, representing a step away from the sterner anthropology characteristic of pontoppidan’s text and its admonitions about “the lusts of sin.”33 despite such alterations, however, Balle’s catechism nonetheless fails to break with the Bible and traditional dogmatic theology. not only is belief in god said to be consonant with reason,34 but contentious doctrines such as the trinity,35 the virgin Birth,36 and the hypostatic union are affirmed.37 even its teachings on duty are couched in biblical language: though essential, human works are always already “imperfect, and god himself is the one who gives us strength to perform them.”38 Thus the integrity of human reason and activity remains, in a very definite sense, qualified. By taking this middle road, Balle’s catechism secured not only a wide readership, but, as mentioned above, vehement criticism as well. lay pietists in both Funen and Jutland saw the catechism as a departure from proper lutheran teaching—a perception only confirmed when Balle replaced 1699’s The Ordained New Church Hymnbook,39 comprised mostly of songs by the great danish hymnist thomas Hansen Kingo (1634–1703), with the updated, even “watered down”40 Evangelical Christian Hymn Book. in the east Jutland region between vejle and Horsens—not far thulstrup, Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, p. 65. Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion, p. 25 (iii § 1). 30 ibid., p. 26 (iii § 2). 31 ibid., p. 30 (iii § 6). 32 ibid., p. 30 (iii § 7). 33 Quoted from lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, p. 184. 34 Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion, p. 6 (i, 1 § 3, § 4). 35 ibid., pp. 10–11 (i, 2 § 2, § 3). 36 ibid., p. 37 (iv § 3) 37 ibid., pp. 37–8 (iv § 3, § 4). 38 ibid., p. 56 (vi § 1). 39 thomas Kingo, Dend Forordnede Ny Kirke-Psalme-Bog. Efter Hans Kongl. Mayest. Allernaadigste befalning, af de fornemste Geistlige i Kiøbenhafn til Guds Tieniste paa Søndagene, Fæsterne/Bededagene/og til anden Gudelig brug i Kircken, udi Danmark og Norge, af Gamle Aanderige Sange Ordentlig indrettet og Flitteligen igiennemseet og med mange Ny Psalmer forbedret, og iligemaader efter Kongl. befalning til Trykken befodret af Thomas Kingo D. Biskop udi i Fyens Stift, odense: Christian skrøder 1699. 40 andersen, Survey of the History of the Church in Denmark, p. 40. 28 29

28

Christopher B. Barnett

north of the moravian settlement of Christiansfeld—persons known as “the strong Jutlanders” (de stærke jyder) refused to acknowledge either the catechism or the new hymnal.41 in some cases, their protest lasted for generations: the congregants in Øster snede used the Kingo hymnal until 1966!42 at the same time, however, Balle’s reforms failed to appease the radicals. indeed, if anything, they encouraged the critics to accelerate their efforts. For example, both Horrebow’s notorious periodical, Jesus and Reason,43 and wedel-Jarlsberg’s journal, The Clerical Occupation Ought To Be Abolished,44 appeared after Balle’s catechism was authorized in 1794. yet, a change of fortune was on the horizon. in the aftermath of the French revolution, the danish crown grew increasingly concerned about the freedom of press. Hence, with a september 1799 ordinance, censorship returned to denmark: printed materials had to be approved before distribution, and writers who aimed to “subvert the doctrine about god’s existence and the human soul’s immortality... blame or insult the Christian religion’s teaching” faced exile.45 other developments, including Kant’s postulation of a noumenal realm beyond the categories of thought, not to mention the rise of romanticism, slowed the radical critics even further.46 Thus Balle came to find newfound appreciation, particularly among the bourgeoisie. His catechism remained the standard for danish schools until 1856, when its “sales monopoly” was withdrawn.47 subsequently, it was surpassed by Luther’s Catechism with a Short Explanation,48 issued by the theologian and future bishop of ribe, Carl Frederik Balslev (1805–95). By that time, however, Balle had been dead 40 years, and his catechism “a presupposition”49 for generations of danish citizens. one of those, of course, was søren Kierkegaard, whose relationship with Balle’s catechism will occupy the remainder of this article. II. How did Kierkegaard relate himself to Balle’s catechism? and to what extent did it influence his thinking? A look over Kierkegaard’s authorship exposes the difficulty of these questions, for, at the very least, it is clear that Kierkegaard’s writings give little direct attention to the catechism. as will be shown, there are a few scattered references to the Lærebog in his work, but, apart from the letters of Judge william, these are so short that they have failed to garner critical attention. in addition— lausten, Danmarks kirkehistorie, p. 209. ibid., p. 212. 43 otto Horrebow, Jesus og Fornuften. Et Religionsblad, Copenhagen: zacharias Breum 1797–1801. 44 Frederik Christian wedel Jarlsberg, Den geistlige Stand bør afskaffes, Copenhagen: Christian Frederik Holm 1795–97. 45 ibid., p. 202. 46 neiiendam, “Balle,” p. 50. 47 watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” p. 114. 48 Carl Frederik Balslev, Luthers Catechismus med en kort Forklaring. En Lærebog for den uconfirmerede Ungdom, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849. 49 thulstrup, Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, p. 71. 41 42

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 29

and somewhat surprisingly—Kierkegaard never refers to Balle’s catechism in his journals and notebooks. in the end, then, it is the second part of Either/Or that best indicates Kierkegaard’s relationship with the textbook, suggesting, it shall be argued, that Kierkegaard did not so much object to its contents as find its mode of ethicoreligious communication insufficient. Kierkegaard’s ambivalence toward Balle’s catechism undoubtedly stemmed from his childhood. on the one hand, while a student at the school of Civic virtue (Borgerdydskolen) from 1821 to 1830, he was required to gain a thorough knowledge of the catechism, indeed, to know it by heart.50 thus Kierkegaard’s formal theological education began with Balle’s catechism, and, in turn, his mature thought displays a degree of continuity with the Lærebog. as Julia watkin points out: “Kierkegaard depicts god as: spirit, eternal, almighty, all-knowing, all-wise, omnipresent, good, compassionate, holy, just and truthful. all these attributes are listed in the points in Balle’s catechism.”51 at the same time, however, this argument can be overstressed. Balle, of course, did not have exclusive purchase on such concepts, and, through later theological training at the university of Copenhagen, not to mention private study, Kierkegaard “[had] access to all of them also outside Balle.”52 Concerned that this detail might encourage one to devalue the catechism’s influence on Kierkegaard, watkin adds that “one ought not to underestimate the effect on the child of the familiar formulations of the catechism.”53 But this comment neglects to account for other aspects of Kierkegaard’s childhood—in particular, his pietistic upbringing. indeed, Kierkegaard’s father, michael pedersen Kierkegaard (1756–1838), grew up in the west Jutland village of sædding, where a number of local priests and moravian emissaries fostered a pietist revival.54 it was, as Jørgen Bukdahl explains, a place where the traditional hymns of Kingo and Hans adolph Brorson (1694– 1757) were cherished, and pontoppidan’s catechism followed rigorously.55 despite relocating to Copenhagen around 1768, michael pedersen never abandoned this sort of Christianity. He affiliated himself with Pietist priests such as Hans Sørensen lemming (1707–88) and peter saxtorph (1720–1803) of nikolaj Church,56 and, in ibid., p. 116. ibid., p. 116. Cf. Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion, pp. 12–16 (i, 3 §§ 1–11). Further, there are a number of journal entries where Kierkegaard’s theological formulations are reminiscent of those in Balle’s catechism and/or hymnal, although he himself does not mention any connection. Cf. SKS 18, 129, HH:8 / KJN 2, 121–2. SKS 18, 130, HH:9 / KJN 2, 122. SKS 20, 57, nB:68 / JP 1, 1010. SKS 20, 218, nB2:198 / JP 1, 951. SKS 21, 292, nB10:66, nB10:66.a / JP 3, 3482. SKS 21, 323, nB10:131 / JP 3, 3433. SKS 22, 42, nB11:69 / JP 2, 1129. SKS 22, 160, nB12:28.a / JP 6, 6453. 52 thulstrup, Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, p. 116. 53 ibid. 54 anders pontoppidan thyssen, De ældre jyske vækkelser: Brødremenigheden i Christiansfeld og herrnhutismen i Jylland til o. 1815, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1967 (Vækkelsernes Frembrud i Danmark i første Halvdel af det 19. Århundrede, vol. 4), p. 18. 55 Jørgen Bukdahl, Søren Kierkegaard: Hans Fader og Slægten i Sædding, ribe: dansk Hjemstavns Forlag 1960, pp. 18–19. 56 peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2006, p. 396. 50 51

30

Christopher B. Barnett

the last decades of his life, he became one of the leaders of Copenhagen’s moravian society (Brødresocietet), whose sunday evening meetings attracted hundreds and hundreds of persons during the 1820s.57 often accompanying michael pedersen to these gatherings were his sons, peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88), and, of course, søren aabye. thus they were participants in the capital city’s “stronghold of those who opposed the rational enlightenment Christianity which predominated in the official State Church.”58 Here, then, was Copenhagen’s version of the aforementioned “strong Jutlanders,” who considered Balle’s catechism a rationalist textbook and so refused to use it. undoubtedly, the textbook was judged similarly within the Brødresocietet, even if some of its more urbane attendees, who had one foot in the establishment and one foot out, did not so much reject the catechism as supplement it with “proper” evangelical teaching. one such group of attendees was the Kierkegaard family. michael pedersen sought an uneasy balance between town and country, state church and lay society, bourgeois respectability and gospel truth—an ambivalence that, in one way or another, was passed on to peter Christian and søren aabye.59 this tension, in turn, must be recognized with regard to Kierkegaard’s relationship with Balle’s catechism. Pace watkin, the fact that he learned it as a child should not be seen as evidence of how he received it. indeed, given his pietist background, it is just as possible that he disliked the catechism as it is that he liked it. this point is reinforced by a glance at Kierkegaard’s library catalogue. although Kierkegaard purchased the 1824 edition of Balle’s catechism not before 1839, he also bought the 1849 edition of pontoppidan’s catechism.60 Watkin maintains that “one should not ascribe an especial significance to this fact,”61 but, given the differences between the two catechisms, it is hard to deny that Kierkegaard’s interest in pontoppidan’s textbook renders his relation to Balle’s catechism more complex. with this ambiguity in mind, Kierkegaard’s evaluation of the Lærebog clearly must be sought in his authorship. But here another problem presents itself. as already noted, Kierkegaard refers to Balle’s catechism in only a few published works, and most of these are brief and, at best, suggestive. For instance, in From the Papers of One Still Living, the 1838 review of Hans Christian andersen’s novel, Only a Fiddler, Kierkegaard chides anderson for inserting “completely irrelevant” comments about Balle’s catechism and hymnbook into his novel.62 to mention the hymnal, Kierkegaard points out, is to bring controversy to mind—controversy that, in turn, interferes with anderson’s portrayal of the character of naomi. although this remark indicates Kierkegaard’s familiarity with the pietist-cum-grundtvigian Kaj Baagø, Vækkelse og Kirkeliv i København og Omegn, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1960 (Vækkelsernes Frembrud i Danmark i første Halvdel af det 19. Ǻrhundrede, vol. 1), pp. 20–4. 58 Bruce H. Kirmmse, Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington: indiana university press 1990, p. 34. 59 ibid., p. 261. 60 H.p. rohde, Auktionsprotokol over Søren Kierkegaards Bogsamling, Copenhagen: det Kongelige Bibliotek 1967, pp. 15–16. 61 watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” p. 115. 62 SKS 1, 47–8 / EPW, 92. 57

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 31

criticisms of Balle’s legacy, it is offered in passing and, accordingly, fails to disclose his own views on the matter. although in a different manner, the role of Balle’s catechism in danish society also stands in the background of Kierkegaard’s 1844 satirical work, Prefaces. in explaining the genesis of his peculiar literary activity—namely, the production of a series of eight prefaces, each without an ensuing book—Kierkegaard’s pseudonym nicolaus notabene offers a tale from his married life. long eager to become an author, nicolaus is opposed by his wife, who claims that “a married man who is an author is not much better than a married man who goes to his club every evening.”63 For her, in other words, the issue has to do with duty, with the obligations intrinsic to the husband–wife relationship. thus she appeals to the sixth chapter of Balle’s catechism, particularly its final section, “On Duties in Particular Estates in Life,” which has a subsection entitled “Husband and wife.” according to nicolaus, his wife does so erroneously. she misunderstands that the catechism lists a variety of duties, and that the wife, too, has her share of obligations. even worse, he adds, she forgets Balle’s reference to ephesians 5:22–23: she takes her stand on the preceding, “that to be an author when one is a married man is the worst kind of unfaithfulness.” now it has even become the “worst” unfaithfulness. if i then remind her that according to all divine and human laws the husband is the ruler, that otherwise my position in life becomes exceedingly low...she reproaches me for my unfairness, “since i know very well that she demands nothing, that in relation to me she desires only to be nothing at all.”64

the irony is that, in the end, neither party is victorious. nicolaus concedes that he will not be an author per se, but only a writer of “prefaces.” His wife accepts this compromise, thereby enabling him to remain faithful to her. Concurrently, however, nicolaus pens his prefaces “without [his] wife’s knowledge by using a sojourn in the country for this,”65 because he is concerned that, if they fail to achieve critical acclaim, his wife will gloat at his misfortune, “her idea strengthened that to be an author when one is a married man is the worst unfaithfulness.”66 in this way, Kierkegaard not only alludes to the conflict between authorial calling and conjugal obligation—a conflict that, as his broken engagement with Regine Olsen implies, he knew all too well—but, more generally, to what he saw as the ultimate insufficiency of catechetical instruction, which systematically aims to promote marital and, in turn, social well-being67 and yet cannot account for the follies and paradoxes of lived existence. this challenge, in fact, might be seen as one of the underlying themes of SKS 4, 473 / P, 9. SKS 4, 475 / P, 10. Cf. Balle, Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion, pp. 87–8 (vi, d, 1 § 3). 65 SKS 4, 476 / P, 12. 66 ibid. 67 The connection between marital and societal flourishing was, it appears, on Kierkegaard’s mind during 1844. as he muses in a journal entry from that year, “the wellbeing of the state depends on that of the family, the well-being of the family on marriage...” (Pap. v B 73). 63 64

32

Christopher B. Barnett

Prefaces, which, after all, is subtitled “light reading for people in various estates according to time and opportunity.” a third reference also hints at the tension between public convention and private discord. in the second part of 1843’s Repetition, the heartbroken young man states that, while he no longer talks with other persons, he does not wish “to break off all communication.”68 For that reason, he has compiled an anthology of “quite a few poems, pithy sayings, proverbs, and brief maxims from the immortal greek and roman writers,” along with “several superb quotations from Balle’s catechism.”69 This comment seems to be an affirmation of the catechism, but, coming from the young man, it assumes an ironic, melancholy character. His anthology is, at bottom, a means of satisfying the requirements of sociality, providing him with restrained and, therefore, appropriate material for conversation. “if anyone asks me anything, i have a ready answer,”70 he adds. But it neither does nor can give expression to his true feelings, which escape the proverbial wisdom that undergirds social politesse. as he puts it, “what could be gained if i did say something—there is no one who understands me. my pain and my suffering are nameless.”71 thus his only comfort is the biblical figure of Job—another person whose individual “ordeal”72 eludes the platitudes of would-be comforters, for whom “everything is an established fact.”73 yet, the rather critical attitude taken up here, as well as in Prefaces, is not characteristic of every reference Kierkegaard makes to Balle’s catechism. in the pseudonymous “letter to the reader,” which concludes Kierkegaard’s 1845 work, Stages on Life’s Way, Frater taciturnus cites the catechism in opposition to Hegel. the latter, he indicates, is an example of an “esthetic” or a “positive” thinker: the brilliance of his thought lies in its ability to articulate outcomes or results, which, SKS 4, 71 / R, 203. Ibid. One of these quotations is taken from the first chapter of Balle’s catechism, which is entitled, “on god and his Characteristics.” it reads, “in general, under the name of ‘the world’ is included both heaven and earth, with all that is found therein” (i, 1 § 2). the pseudonymous young man offers no comment on it, but, in a letter from 1848, Kierkegaard does. noting the aforementioned definition, Kierkegaard tells his cousin, Julie Thomsen, that he has a different understanding of “the world.” For him, it refers to “all the human multitudes therein contained” (B&A, vol. 1, p. 219 / LD, letter 195, p. 278). with this in mind, he adds that, as a rule, “my advice to everybody is to let the world ‘be blown’ ” (B&A, vol. 1, p. 219 / LD, letter 195, p. 278). yet, since he has hurt the feelings of his cousin’s “little son” earlier in the day—not surprisingly, by walking too fast and, apparently, leaving the child behind—he is willing to revise his advice. as he puts it, “[a] little child—indeed, be it ever so tiny, the least offense against this little child—indeed, be it ever so tiny—when i have offended against this little one, that is a very serious matter to me, something about which i cannot say ‘be blown!’ ” (B&A, vol. 1, p. 220 / LD, letter 195, p. 279). with his letter, then, he sent the boy a “box of toys from the strange man who walked too fast” (B&A, vol. 1, p. 220 / LD, letter 195, p. 279). How this epistolary reference to Balle’s catechism relates to the one in Repetition is uncertain; however, it does appear Kierkegaard felt that Balle’s definition of “the world” erroneously conflated heaven and earth and, so, risked violating the qualitative distinction between the two. 70 SKS 4, 71 / R, 203. 71 ibid. 72 SKS 4, 77 / R, 209. 73 SKS 4, 76 / R, 208. 68 69

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 33

in turn, encourage “listeners to have a certain confidence in him.”74 For taciturnus, however, the provision of positive results is misleading: If one seeks enlightenment from the master, Hegel, about what a positive infinity means, one learns a great deal; one takes the trouble, and one does understand him. the only thing a latecomer perhaps does not understand is how a living human being or a human being during his lifetime becomes such a being that he can be calmed and reassured in this positive infinity, which usually is reserved for the deity and eternity and the deceased.75

it is better, then, for “us human beings”76 to proceed more modestly. as taciturnus puts it, “For a finite being, and that, after all, is what human beings are as long as they live in temporality (see Balle’s Lærebog), the negative infinity is the higher, and the positive is a dubious reassurance.”77 in this oblique reference to the eighth and final chapter of Balle’s catechism, entitled “On the Person’s Final State,” Taciturnus injects not a little sarcasm. a textbook for children, he suggests, comprehends humanity’s existential situation better than Hegel, the world-famous philosopher. The latter skimps over finitude and temporality, but the catechism acknowledges them and so elicits due humility. this was to be the last direct reference to Balle’s catechism in Kierkegaard’s published writings, and, set against its predecessors, it is an instructive one. First, it balances out the criticisms of the catechism adumbrated in both Repetition and Prefaces, and, therefore, it suggests that Kierkegaard was not hostile toward the Lærebog. indeed, one might say that, as far as he was concerned, Balle’s catechism was a tolerable conveyor of “the basic tenets of lutheran Christianity,”78 but nevertheless failed to grasp the intricacies of both human existence and religious communication—an assessment that casts light on the second part of Either/Or and its central figure, Judge William. at the outset of this article, it was noted that, toward the end of his letter on the aesthetic and the ethical, Judge william refers to his argument “as notes to Balle’s catechism.”79 But what might this statement mean? a pair of interrelated answers immediately come to mind: (1) that his position is basically Christian, and (2) that his Christian position is in line with Balle’s catechism and, in turn, its rationalist emphasis on duty. as will be shown, the second part of Either/Or confirms these assumptions. to be sure, Judge william makes no secret about his Christian beliefs, which constitute the cantus firma, as it were, of his lifeview. Julia watkin nicely sums up this aspect of his character:

74 75 76 77 78 79

SKS 6, 409–10 / SLW, 442–4. SKS 6, 410 / SLW, 444. SKS 6, 411 / SLW, 444. ibid. watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” p. 124. SKS 3, 305 / EO2, 323.

34

Christopher B. Barnett [the Judge] lets us know that he believes in god and in the incarnation of Christ. He tells us that he goes to church regularly. He reads the Bible and commentaries, admits to being surprisingly well versed in scripture, and appears to know more than the average layman about Church teaching. He also discusses Christianity with at least one pastor friend, and he stresses the importance of repentance, humility, and the first commandment. Lastly, he relies on God’s grace, and he believes in immortality and final judgment.80

in short, as Judge william himself expresses it, he is one “helped...by the Christian view.”81 Qua novelist, Kierkegaard scarcely could have made this point clearer. But what kind of Christian is the Judge? or, to put it differently, what sort of Christian position does he represent? it is with these questions that the allusions to Balle’s catechism become especially pertinent, since, in likening his view to the Lærebog, Judge william indicates that his Christianity is at once doctrinally orthodox and socially progressive. Contra the radicals, it does not want to dispense with traditional Christian teaching, even as, over against the pietists, it explicitly and implicitly approaches faith more in terms of public utility than in terms of the individual’s fragile situation opposite god. as with Balle’s catechism, it is a Christianity of the via media, of societal solidarity. Kierkegaard illustrates this point in a number of ways. in addition to the ethicallydriven, middle-class lifestyle of Judge william himself, who is a happy husband, father, and working man82 and so claims that “[t]he genuinely extraordinary person is the genuinely ordinary person,”83 Kierkegaard associates the Judge’s emphasis on duty with his training in Balle’s catechism. indeed, in trying to persuade “a,” the young aesthete, to choose a determinate lifeview, Judge william makes an appeal to the notion of “duty.” For him, the import of duty is that it incorporates the individual into the universal, giving him or her a “civic self,”84 even as it keeps the individual engaged as an individual. in this way, it manifests the personality’s “highest validity,” which is to realize “the unity of the universal and particular.”85 with this point established, however, the Judge notes that his recommendation of duty should not be confused with the sorts of duties enumerated in Balle’s catechism: now, it is not my intention to give you a lecture on a doctrine of duty or to speak according to custom about duties to god, oneself, and one’s neighbor. not that i would spurn this grouping or that what i would have to teach would be too profound to be watkin, “Judge william—a Christian?” p. 120. the Judge’s references to Christian teachings and/or themes are manifold. Cf. SKS 3, 15 / EO2, 5. SKS 3, 25 / EO2, 15–16. SKS 3, 48 / EO2, 40–1. SKS 3, 66 / EO2, 60. SKS 3, 67 / EO2, 62. SKS 3, 74–5 / EO2, 69–71. SKS 3, 93–7 / EO2, 90–4. SKS 3, 122–3 / EO2, 122–3. SKS 3, 165 / EO2, 168. SKS 3, 197 / EO2, 204–5. SKS 3, 199 / EO2, 207. SKS 3, 208–9 / EO2, 216–18. SKS 3, 210–13 / EO2, 219–23. SKS 3, 217 / EO2, 227. SKS 3, 227–38 / EO2, 237–50. SKS 3, 243 / EO2, 255. SKS 3, 247 / EO2, 259. SKS 3, 256 / EO2, 270. SKS 3, 296–8 / EO2, 313–16. SKS 3, 303 / EO2, 321. SKS 3, 306 / EO2, 324. SKS 3, 317–18 / EO2, 337–8. 81 SKS 3, 229 / EO2, 239. 82 SKS 3, 200 / EO2, 208. 83 SKS 3, 309 / EO2, 328. 84 SKS 3, 249 / EO2, 262. 85 SKS 3, 250 / EO2, 264. 80

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 35 joined to Balle’s catechism or would presuppose much more previous knowledge than this catechism presupposes—not all for those reasons, but because i believe that with the ethical it is not a matter of the multiplicity of duty but of its intensity.86

this comment is not so much a criticism of Balle—indeed, Judge william underlines his support of the Lærebog—as it is a recognition that the catechism needs qualitative reinforcement. it will not do, he claims, simply to give a person a catalogue of duties, for, unless one feels “the intensity of duty in such a way that the consciousness of it is for him the assurance of the eternal validity of his being,”87 such a catalogue will fail to make an impact. In other words, one first must acknowledge the self’s basic ethical structure—its status as the unity of the universal and the particular—before the question of this or that duty gains significance. in an attempt to clarify this contention, Judge william offers an example from his childhood. He recalls that, as a boy of five, he was required to memorize the first ten lines of Balle’s catechism. He focused on this responsibility with exceptional vigor, reciting it day and night, both to himself and to his sister. in turn, he acquired an impression that was to shape his future development: it seemed to me that heaven and earth would tumble down if i did not do my homework, and on the other hand it seemed to me that if heaven and earth did tumble down this upheaval would in no way excuse me from doing what had once been set before me— doing my homework. at that age i knew very little about my duties; i had not yet become acquainted with them in Balle’s catechism. i had but one duty, to do my homework, and yet i can derive my whole ethical view of life from this impression.88

a few pages later, the Judge returns to this instance, stating that the “crux of the matter” has to do with the “energy” he brought to his homework assignment—an energy that made him “ethically conscious” and so “conscious of my eternal being.”89 His learning of Balle’s catechism, in other words, was “the first demonstration...of the immortality of [his] soul.”90 this example, it seems, is tendered knowingly. after all, “a” was also a schoolchild once, and, as a danish citizen, he, too, would have had to learn Balle’s catechism. apparently, then, the Judge is attempting to prompt the aesthete’s memory, encouraging him to remember what it was like to have a determinate duty and, therefore, to exist as the site where the universal and the particular come together. indeed, even one such as “a,” who, as an adult, has situated himself outside the distinction between good and evil and so outside duty,91 once participated in the universal. He, too, has encountered the eternal by way of those social institutions— in particular, the church, the authorizer of Balle’s catechism—that secure it for all danes. thus the Lærebog does not exist merely as a register of duties; rather, 86 87 88 89 90 91

SKS 3, 253 / EO2, 266. ibid. SKS 3, 254 / EO2, 267. SKS 3, 256 / EO2, 270. ibid. SKS 3, 165 / EO2, 169.

36

Christopher B. Barnett

the very practice of learning it, along with other sittliche conventions, supply the “energy” necessary for the discharge of those duties. For the Judge, it is just this sort of Christianity, which is not only rationalist in its deontological emphases, but also bound to the state Church and its mediating social role, that best speaks to prodigal sons such as the aesthete. Personified by Judge William, it waits for their return with open arms. that Kierkegaard invested so much care into the character and argumentation of the Judge is telling. Clearly, he had no trouble developing a sensitive understanding of this representative of Ballean Christianity. as robert perkins puts it, “no one has penetrated so deeply and sympathetically...into nineteenth century bourgeois lutheran piety as Kierkegaard has through Judge william.”92 and yet, with Either/ Or’s closing “Ultimatum,” Kierkegaard suggests the insufficiency of the Judge’s position and, with it, of Balle’s catechism. now, the question of how the “ultimatum”—which, according to the Judge, is a sermon written by “an older friend,” who pastors “a little parish on the heath of Jutland”93—relates to the rest of Either/Or is a complex and hotly debated one.94 Might the sermon be an attempt to expose the superficiality of the Judge’s religiousness, which, as anthony rudd sees it, is little more than a “metaphysical epiphenomenon of his ethics”?95 if so, however, then why does Judge william insist that the sermon “has grasped what i have said and what i would like to have said”?96 such questions could be multiplied, but, with regard to this article, they are not the decisive ones. indeed, the key issue here does not concern a distinction in content between the Judge’s and the pastor’s thinking, but, rather, the simple fact that Judge william elects to send the sermon to the aesthete—a fact suggesting that he perceives a limitation to his own dealings with “a.” But what might that limitation be? earlier it was noted that, for the Judge, social institutions and instruments are appropriate means for instilling ethical “energy” and, in turn, for undergirding religious principles. thus he appeals to Balle’s catechism, not only as an effective dogmatic and moral instructor, but as the kind of catalyst needed to awaken the ethico-religious impulse in danish citizens. the formation of dutiful persons, he says, is dependent on society’s instillation of a sense of duty in persons—a sense given in ordinary homework assignments, such as the memorization of the first ten lines of Balle’s catechism. the establishment, then, is the medium through which individuals come into a proper relationship with others and with god. robert l. perkins, “either/or/or: giving the parson His due,” in Either/Or Part II, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1995 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 4), pp. 207–31; p. 220. 93 SKS 3, 318 / EO2, 337. 94 see, for example, perkins, “either/or/or: giving the parson His due,” pp. 222–31; david r. law, “the place, role, and Function of the ‘ultimatum’ of Either/Or, part two, in Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship,” in Either/Or Part II, ed. by robert l. perkins, pp. 233–57; anthony rudd, Kierkegaard and the Limits of the Ethical, oxford: Clarendon press 1993. 95 rudd, Kierkegaard and the Limits of the Ethical, p. 141. 96 SKS 3, 318 / EO2, 338. 92

Balle: The Reception of His lærebog in Denmark and in Kierkegaard’s Authorship 37

Yet, in sending the pastor’s sermon to the aesthete, the Judge implies, first, that this relationship can be brought about in another way and, second, that it must be. in other words, another form of ethico-religious communication is needed, if one is to reach aesthetes such as “a,” as well as those, seduced by the “illusion” of Christendom, whose Christianity lies within the aesthetic.97 indeed, where the establishment assigns duties, and the catechism enumerates doctrines, the pastor’s sermon, entitled “the upbuilding that lies in the thought that in relation to god we are always in the wrong,” converses with the individual, asking him or her to contemplate life’s cares, contradictions, and hopes. “one more question before we part, my listener,”98 the pastor characteristically requests. in this way, he calls on the hearer’s capacity for reflection, which, for Kierkegaard, is proper to human existence99 and which, in the modern world, must be passed through before the ethico-religious can be adopted. as Kierkegaard writes in an 1848 journal entry: It has generally been thought that reflection is the natural enemy of Christianity and would destroy it. With God’s help I hope to show that God-fearing reflection can tie knots again which a shallow, superficial reflection has toyed with so long. The divine authority of the Bible and everything related to it has been abolished; it looks as if one final unit of reflection is expected to finish the whole thing. But look, reflection is on the way to do a counterservice, to reset the trigger springs for the essentially Christian so that it may stand its ground—against reflection.100

Here Kierkegaard combines themes present in works such as 1846’s A Literary Review and the posthumously published The Point of View for My Work as an Author. However, apropos of this article, the important point is that Kierkegaard’s turn to a maieutic, dialogic mode of communication is already implicit in the Judge’s forwarding of the pastor’s upbuilding sermon. directly appealing to marriage or to Balle’s catechism—institutions, as it were, sanctioned by the establishment for the sake of the societal flourishing—cannot penetrate the skepticism of the age alone. rather, the communicator must access the very rudiments of human existence. it is in that way, as the pastor seeks to demonstrate, that ethical “energy” is to be won and persons inspired to action.101 of course, one might object that the letters of Judge william—and, for that matter, the teachings of Balle’s catechism—rival the earnestness of the Jutland pastor’s talk. yet, in his social placement of the Judge and of the Lærebog, Kierkegaard suggests otherwise. they belong to the establishment, to the civic world of Copenhagen—a world from which their ideas, no matter how apt, cannot be prescinded. in contrast, the pastor is something of a solitary figure, whose thought does not emanate from social customs, but, rather, from existence itself. Indeed, it is significant that the Judge quotes the following words from the pastor:

97 98 99 100 101

SKS 22, 184, nB12:74, nB12:74.a / JP 6, 6466. SKS 3, 332 / EO2, 354. SKS 7, 383 / CUP1, 421. SKS 21, 68, nB6:93 / JP 3, 3704. SKS 3, 331 / EO2, 353.

38

Christopher B. Barnett the heath in Jylland is a real playground for me, a private study room beyond compare. i go out there on saturday and meditate on my sermons, and everything unfolds for me. i forget every actual listener and gain an ideal one; i achieve total absorption in myself. therefore, when i step into the pulpit, it is as if i were still standing out there on the heath, where my eyes see no human being, where my voice rises to its full power in order to drown out the storm.102

Here the reference to the Jutland heath is helpful, recalling Kierkegaard’s own Jutland roots, which, in turn, are inseparable from his pietist heritage. yet, if many pietists questioned the orthodoxy of Balle’s catechism, Kierkegaard seems to have taken another approach, albeit one that still harks back to pietism. For him, the trouble with the Lærebog and its defenders lies less in their teachings than in the way they would tender those teachings. the ethico-religious cannot be apprehended merely through social conventions; it has to confront the individual in his or her spiritual singularity and in the “perception of his own unworthiness alone.”103 in the end, then, the epigraph to the second part of Either/Or—a quotation from the French author François-René Chateaubriand—is, ironically, a fitting conclusion to the book: “the great passions are hermits, and to transport them to the desert is to hand over to them their proper domain.” and yet, this statement also piquantly sums up Kierkegaard’s evaluation of Balle’s catechism. indeed, as an instrument of the established order, the catechism would confine to the classroom what belongs to the desert—or, better yet, to the Jutland heath.

102 103

SKS 3, 318 / EO2, 338. SKS 21, 106, nB7:61 / JP 2, 2009.

Bibliography I. Balle’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Lærebog i den Evangelisk-christelige Religion indrettet til Brug i de Danske Skoler, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1824 (ASKB 183). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Balle none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Balle Thulstrup, Niels, “The Official Books of the Church,” Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulovà thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1984 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 13), pp. 28–71; see the section entitled “Balle’s primer,” pp. 60–71. watkin, Julia, “Kierkegaard og Balle,” in Kierkegaard inspiration. En antologi, ed. by Birgit Bertung, paul müller, Fritz norman, and Julia watkin, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1991 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vol. 20), pp. 35–46. —— “Judge william—a Christian?” in Either/Or Part II, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1995 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 4), pp. 113–24.

Henrik nicolai Clausen: the voice of urbane rationalism Hugh s. pyper

Henrik nicolai Clausen (1793–1877) was, when Kierkegaard encountered him as a student, professor of systematic theology at the university of Copenhagen and also a significant political figure. In both spheres, he was a leading champion of liberal rationalism. Clausen taught Kierkegaard at a crucial stage in his development. it was through his university teachers that Kierkegaard met the latest thinking in biblical studies, church history, and systematic theology in the 1830s. Clausen was acknowledged as the most intellectually impressive member of the faculty. His influence on Kierkegaard is hard to trace, however. Direct references to Clausen in Kierkegaard’s writings are few and at times dismissive. yet, although he quickly repudiated Clausen’s liberalism and rationalism, Clausen’s lectures and writings on schleiermacher, critical new testament studies, and the development of biblical hermeneutics in the patristic period were an important element in Kierkegaard’s education which he drew upon throughout his authorship. I. Clausen’s Life and Works Clausen was in born maribo on april 22, 1793. in 1797, his father was appointed as a resident priest at vor Frue Kirke in Copenhagen, and the family moved to the capital. it was to be Clausen’s home for the next 80 years. He was brought up in a religious and musical household shaped by his father’s rational Kantianism and his mother’s more conservative faith. He became a student of theology at Copenhagen university in 1813 and graduated with the university’s gold medal in 1815. His studies focused on the early church fathers, laying the foundation for an interest in the history of interpretation and hermeneutics that underlay much of his subsequent work. His thesis for the doctorate in philosophy, The Judgment of the Apologists of the Pre-Theodosian Church on Plato and his Philosophy, was written in 1817.1 Between 1818 and 1820 he traveled in europe, visiting göttingen, Berlin, dresden, vienna, and rome. By his own account, it was the period he spent as a rapt listener to schleiermacher in Berlin from october 1818 to march 1819 that had the

Henrik nicolai Clausen, Apologetae ecclesiæ Christianæ ante-theodosiani, Platonis ejusque philosophiæ arbitri, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1817. 1

42

Hugh S. Pyper

most lasting impact on him.2 He found in schleiermacher’s thought a way to ground Christian faith on inner conviction tempered with rational reflection rather than on church tradition or scriptural dogmatism. this stance he was to maintain throughout his life. on his return to Copenhagen, he became a lecturer and subsequently professor in the theological faculty. His first major published work, Catholicism’s and Protestantism’s Church Constitution, Doctrine and Ritual, appeared in 1825.3 in this pioneering work in historical dogmatics, Clausen, following schleiermacher, argues that scripture is the raw material from which the church constructs its belief and practice. in this process, church tradition has to bow to the researches of the professional theologian and biblical scholar whose task is to clarify and elaborate through a constant process of critical engagement the teaching that had been given in nuce in the Bible. Clausen was never simplistic enough to think that scholars could answer everything and, along with this argument, acknowledged the authority of the spiritual heritage of the church. there is a difference between the kind of answer which is sought by church historians and the answers appropriate to the questions of the faithful believer. yet a revelation which cannot be rationally comprehended and which does not yield fruit from rational investigation is no revelation for Clausen. the process of research is never-ending, but also endlessly enriching. Clausen uses schleiermacher’s term “approximation” to underpin the whole argument. the book almost immediately prompted n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872) to publish his pamphlet The Church’s Rejoinder.4 grundtvig’s reading of Clausen was partial at best, and in the course of the pamphlet he attacked Clausen with such vehemence that the latter successfully sued him for libel in a celebrated scandal. the controversy made Clausen’s name a byword for the dangers of rationalism in grundtvigian and conservative circles, and this cast a long shadow on his career in the danish church. Clausen’s devotion to research on the new testament and its hermeneutics arises out of this understanding of biblical scholarship as a crucial and highly responsible calling. His work can still impress a modern reader with its rigor and clarity, and some of his books remain a useful resource. in his Synoptic Overview of the Four Gospels, published in 1829,5 Clausen displays an admirable breadth of reading and a capacity for clear and thorough exposition as he sets out to answer the question of the see Henrik nicolai Clausen, Optegnelser om mit Levneds og min Tids Historie, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1877, pp. 67–78. 3 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1825 (ASKB a i 42). 4 n.F.s. grundtvig, Kirkens Gienmæle mod Professor Theologiæ Dr. H. N. Clausen, Copenhagen: trykt paa den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825. For further discussion in english of this dispute, see a.m. allchin, N.F.S. Grundtvig: An Introduction to his Life and Work, london: darton, longman and todd 1997, pp. 105–14 and Bruce H. Kirmmse, Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington: indiana university press 1990, pp. 210–14. the two accounts are interestingly different in their degree of sympathy for grundtvig’s stance. 5 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Quatuor evangeliorum tabulae synopticae. Juxta rationes temporis quoad fieri potuit composuit: annotationibusque ex perpetua sectionum singularum collatione, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1829 (ASKB 467). 2

Henrik Nicolai Clausen: The Voice of Urbane Rationalism

43

order in which the gospels are written.6 this work was to some extent incorporated into the much larger Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, finally published in 1850 and still a useful overview of the textual evidence.7 in 1840, Clausen published The New Testament’s Hermeneutics, where schleiermacher is his main guide as he sets out, again with admirable clarity, a history of biblical hermeneutics under the triple headings of philological, historical, and theological interpretation.8 From these works we can gain a good idea of the approach Clausen took in his lectures at the university. they are practical guidebooks rather than methodological treatises. detailed examination of the greek text, including investigating connections to the septuagint and to cognate Hebrew expressions, is the basis of any argument. His students were well trained in such rigorous examination of the text, and Kierkegaard’s habit of going through a scriptural verse considering each word in succession has some precedent in Clausen’s practice. the somewhat mysterious Hebrew annotations of Kierkegaard’s so-called Blue testament may also derive from Clausen’s insistence on the need to trace the semitic nuances that may lie behind the choice of vocabulary and syntax in a new testament verse.9 Clausen’s lectures on dogmatics were also adapted for publication and appeared in a relatively popular form as Development of the Main Christian Doctrines in 1844,10 and more systematically as Christian Dogmatics in 1853.11 these are the principal works that Kierkegaard encountered. Clausen outlived Kierkegaard by over twenty years and continued to publish significant biblical and dogmatic works until the end of his life, dying in 1877. He combined his theological work and several years as rector of the university with a notable political career as a parliamentarian and minister without portfolio. II. Encounters between Clausen and Kierkegaard Kierkegaard’s recorded encounters with Clausen are few but not without significance. Kierkegaard is only once mentioned in Clausen’s posthumously published memoirs Sketches of the History of My Life and Times, where the attack on Christianity is explained as due to a “sickly, ecstatic overwroughtness.”12 what sources there are testify to a tense relationship between the two.

ibid. Henrik nicolai Clausen, Fortolkning af de synoptiske Evangelier, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 106–107). 8 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Det nye Testaments Hermeneutik, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1840 (ASKB 468). 9 see B.r. dewey, “Kierkegaard and the Blue testament,” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 60, 1967, pp. 391–409. 10 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Udvikling af de christelige Hovedlærdomme, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1844 (ASKB 253; cf. also ASKB a i 38). 11 Henrik nicolai Clausen, Christelig Troeslære, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1853 (ASKB 256). 12 Clausen, Optegnelser om mit Levneds og min Tids Historie, p. 448. 6 7

44

Hugh S. Pyper

Kierkegaard attended a number of Clausen’s lecture courses, and the journals include some of his lecture notes. peter tudvad lists the courses taught by Clausen that Kierkegaard was registered to attend.13 in the winter semester of 1832–33, Clausen lectured on the new testament and on the synoptic gospels. in the summer semester 1833, he turned to new testament hermeneutics. in the winter of that year, he gave an exegetical course on the acts of the apostles and one on Christian dogmatics. in the summer of 1834 he lectured on his own work on the augsburg Confession. Kierkegaard’s friend peter rørdam (1806–83) recounted a confrontation between the theological students and Clausen in that year brought about because Clausen upheld the decision of the faculty that each theological student should be assigned a numbered seat for the whole semester so that they could be more easily monitored.14 Kierkegaard is one of two students mentioned by name for their “sober and serious” speeches of opposition to this move, which of course would have made missing lectures more difficult. in 1835, Kierkegaard seems to have been part of the group of older students that Clausen tutored in theological writing. an incident reported by Hans Brøchner may well have occurred in this class.15 Kierkegaard, instead of completing the written assignment for one of Clausen’s seminars, offended Clausen by demonstrating that the assignment was meaningless and subsequently stopped attending. their next recorded encounter occurred when Kierkegaard resumed his theological studies in 1839. Hans Brøchner recalled that he and Kierkegaard attended a writing seminar with Clausen that winter but that Kierkegaard stopped going after only two or three lectures. Brøchner accounts for this as a result of his earlier clash with Clausen. in the light of this, it was either providential or tactful that Clausen did not take part in Kierkegaard’s final examination on 2 June 1840. This conflicted relationship is reflected in what can be gleaned of Kierkegaard’s attitude to Clausen during these years. in 1835, as thulstrup has pointed out, Clausen seems to be the unnamed target of Kierkegaard’s denunciation of rationalism in a letter to peter wilhelm lund (1801–80).16 He describes rationalism as an incoherent attempt to harness reason to Christianity. the rationalist accepts the authority of scripture when scripture agrees with reason, but not when it seemingly contradicts reason, making a nonsense of the whole concept of revelation. in the same letter, Kierkegaard parodies the parade of scriptural references in the work of the rationalists, probably with Clausen in mind, likening it to the strategy of the persian general peter tudvad, Kierkegaards København, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 2004, pp. 179–81; p. 183. as will appear later, the fact that Kierkegaard was on the class list does not mean that he attended all or indeed many of the lectures. 14 Quoted in a letter from peter rørdam to his brother Hans rørdam, december 4, 1834; Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, ed. by Bruce Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 1996, p. 20. 15 ibid., p. 228. 16 niels thulstrup, “H.n. Clausen,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 158–69; see p. 167. 13

Henrik Nicolai Clausen: The Voice of Urbane Rationalism

45

Cambyses who put sacred animals at the front of the army in order to forestall enemy attacks.17 Clausen’s fundamental position that revelation could and must be authenticated by reason is one that Kierkegaard would devote his entire authorship to combating. Brøchner also recalled that one of the few times that Kierkegaard spoke approvingly of grundtvig was in recalling his opposition to Clausen. although he had nothing but contempt for grundtvig’s so-called “matchless discovery,” according to Brøchner, he appreciated grundtvig’s insistence on the inner experience of religious life as against rationalism.18 that said, throughout his writing career Kierkegaard drew on what he had learned from Clausen when he cited the church fathers and in his approach to the text of the new testament. He owned a number of Clausen’s books. moreover, these reactions of the young Kierkegaard should be set against a number of late references to Clausen in the journals.19 As Kierkegaard himself moved towards his final confrontation with Christendom, he seems to have come to appreciate the courage with which Clausen had been prepared to resist popular pressure to comply with the popular mood and the church hierarchy. III. Communications between Kierkegaard and Clausen the written communications between Kierkegaard and Clausen are sparse but telling. on september 25, 1847, Clausen wrote to Kierkegaard in connection with the scandinavian book collection in rome, asking if Kierkegaard would consider making a donation to this.20 Here Clausen refers not only to the books in Kierkegaard’s own name, but also mentions “Either/Or and its siblings,” making a rather coy reference to Kierkegaard as the supposed father of these books. this betrays the fact that he had not read the final part of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript where Kierkegaard acknowledges his authorship. Kierkegaard’s reply is curiously oblique, playing on the impossibility of a reply to this inquiry.21 as the inquiry comes from Clausen, whom he addresses as professor, he cannot refuse, but in any case there is no question of him wishing to refuse. He cannot therefore “reply” to the note, as it poses no question. Can we see an echo

the connection to Clausen is made explicit in a paraphrase of this description by vilhelm Birkedal as quoted in Encounters with Kierkegaard, ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, p. 20. in his note on this passage (p. 275), Kirmmse points out that the same image appears in The Concept of Anxiety in a criticism of the german theologian leonhard usteri and questions Birkedal’s recollection. However, this is as easily explained as the reapplication 10 years later of a striking image from an unpublished letter. in 1834, the likelihood that it was Clausen who was in Kierkegaard’s sights is high. 18 Encounters with Kierkegaard, ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, p. 246. 19 SKS 22, 259, nB12:189. SKS 23, 14, nB15:9. SKS 23, 150–1, nB 16:83. Pap. Xi–3 B 89 and 188. 20 B&A, vol. 1, p. 178 / LD, letter 158, pp. 224–5. 21 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 178–9 / LD, letter 159, p. 225. 17

46

Hugh S. Pyper

here of the student who, years before, argued that Clausen’s class assignment was incoherent? in 1851, Clausen sent Kierkegaard a complimentary copy of his The Augsburg Confession, Translated and Elucidated with a Historical-Dogmatic Analysis, published that year.22 again there is a curious sparring tone to Clausen’s accompanying note and to Kierkegaard’s reply. Clausen supposes that Kierkegaard is unlikely to be interested in a “historical-dogmatic” work but sends it as a sign of gratitude for the complimentary copies of his works Kierkegaard has sent him. dedications of copies of Three Discourses at the Communion on Fridays and Practice in Christianity addressed to Clausen bear evidence of this.23 Kierkegaard’s response again adopts the attitude of the cocky but also deferential student. Clausen’s note has let him understand that one can wound and heal at the same time, he writes. when one’s own professor of theology questions one’s interest in theology, notwithstanding the fact that one has graduated with the highest honors, it is a wounding moment, healed, however, by the fact that the reverend professor has sent the gift. He then moves into a rather elaborate, not to say fey, defense of his late response to the gift, maintaining that he has delayed in order to make it clear that he has actually read the book before responding. is there a covert reproach to Clausen here for not having read Kierkegaard’s work? Kierkegaard then develops an overelaborate pun in arguing that his seemingly inconsiderate lateness is actually due to the fact that he was considering the book, so these are now considerate thanks.24 all this seems to imply that Kierkegaard retains in 1851 a sense of having to prove something to Clausen in a somewhat adolescent manner. it is hard to imagine that the two men did not have a sense of each other’s abilities, even if they differed fundamentally, and that Kierkegaard experienced, albeit in a much diluted way, the mixture of envy, resentment, respect, deference, and admiration towards Clausen that affected his relationship to Heiberg. Clausen’s position in society as a university professor and accepted member of the church was also something that Kierkegaard respected and aspired to in one way, and rejected in another. Kierkegaard learned a great deal from Clausen in terms of the technical and historical aspects of biblical studies and hermeneutics, even if he quickly rejected Clausen’s liberal rationalism. His influence on Kierkegaard’s work is for that reason hard to assess but easy to underestimate. Kierkegaard might not have been consciously aware of it in any given situation. Clausen’s importance is not so much in his direct effect on Kierkegaard’s thought but in his influence on the way in which Kierkegaard came to be proficient in the tools of his self-chosen task.

Den Augsburgske Confession, oversat og belyst ved historisk-dogmatisk Udvikling, trans. and ed. by H.n. Clausen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1854 (ASKB 387); the accompanying note is B&A, vol. 1, p. 312 / LD, letter 287, pp. 396–7. 23 B&A, vol. 1, p. 341 / LD, dedications 12, 13, pp. 432–4. 24 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 312–13 / LD, letter 288, pp. 397–8. 22

Bibliography I. Clausen’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Fortolkning af de synoptiske Evangelier, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 106–107). Udvikling af de christelige Hovedlærdomme, Copenhagen: i Commission hos universitetsboghandler reitzel 1844 (ASKB 253; cf. also ASKB a i 38). Christelig Troeslære, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1853 (ASKB 256). “Critik og Fremstilling af underbegrebet,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens møller, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 1, 1821, pp. 14–50 (ASKB 336–345). “apologie for min afhandling om underbegrebet,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 6, 1824, pp. 37–164. “sendebrev til Hr. stiftsprovst dr. møller,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 10, 1826, pp. 257–96. “andet sendebrev til Hr. stiftsprovst dr. møller,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 12, 1827, pp. 321–79. “Fornøden erklæring angaaende Hr. provst engelbreth,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 13, 1828, pp. 343–64. “sendebrev til udgiveren fra Hr. professor dr. theol. H.n. Clausen,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 16, 1830, pp. 280–300. “universitates optima ecclesiæ evangelicæ Fulcra et præsidia,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 18, 1830, pp. 170–97. Quatuor evangeliorum tabulae synopticae. Juxta rationes temporis quoad fieri potuit composuit: annotationibusque ex perpetua sectionum singularum collatione, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1829 (ASKB 467). Det nye Testaments Hermeneutik, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1840 (ASKB 468). Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1825 (ASKB a i 42). [trans. and ed.], Den Augsburgske Confession, oversat og belyst ved historiskdogmatisk Udvikling, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1854 (ASKB 387). [ed., together with m.H. Hohlenberg], Tidsskrift for udenlandsk theologisk Litteratur, vol. 4, 1836 (vols. 1–20, 1833–52), (ASKB u 29). the minutes of speeches made by Clausen: —— “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? (Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen d. 11 og 12 avril 1849),” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53 [for the minutes of Clausen’s speech], see vol. 4, no. 188, columns 528–33; vol. 4, no. 189, columns 539–41 (ASKB 321–325).

48

Hugh S. Pyper

—— “om religionsfriheden udenfor den danske Folkekirke. et uddrag af rigsdagsforhandlingerne den 12. apr. samt 3. og 5. mai,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 192, 1849 [for the minutes of Clausen’s speech], columns 603–4 and vol. 4, no. 193, 1849, columns 618–22. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Clausen anonymous, [review of] “Den augsburgske Confession oversat og belyst ved historiskdogmatisk Udvikling. af H.n. Clausen,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 7, no. 335, 1852, columns 158–60 and vol. 7, no. 336, 1852, columns 73–4 (ASKB 321–325). —— “dr. H.n. Clausen: Tidsskrift for udenlandsk theologisk Literatur. 1852. 4de Hefte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 389, 1853, column 176. martensen, Hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 302, note; p. 527, note; p. 531, note (ASKB 653). møller, Jens, “Bemærkninger om den katholske gudsdyrkelses væsen og værd, uddragne af Hr. professor Clausens nylig udkomne, interessante værk: Katholicismens og protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, lære og ritus (Kbhavn, 1825),” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 8, 1825, pp. 270–80. mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 1, p. 474; pp. 487–8; vol. 2, p. 98 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, erasmus [rasmus], De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, Havniæ [Copenhagen]: tengnagel 1840, p. 53, note; p. 54, note; p. 55, note; p. 82, note (ASKB 697). Ørsted, anders sandøe, Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1851–52 [vols. 3–4, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 1, pp. 357ff. (ASKB 1959–1960). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Clausen Bruun, niels w. and Finn gredal Jensen, “Kierkegaard’s donations to the library of the scandinavian society in rome,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2009, pp. 601–10. Kirmmse, Bruce, “H.n. Clausen and orla lehmann: the liberal alternative to the golden age mainstream,” in Bruce Kirmmse, Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press 1990, pp. 238–44. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950, see pp. 77–8; p. 89; p. 144; p. 177. larsen, Jørgen, H.N. Clausen: Hans Liv og Gerning, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1945, p. 197; p. 203; p. 206; p. 260. plekon, michael, “Kierkegaard, the Church and theology of golden age denmark,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 34, no. 2, 1983, pp. 245–66. thulstrup, niels, “H.n. Clausen,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 158–69.

magnús eiríksson: an opponent of martensen and an unwelcome ally of Kierkegaard gerhard schreiber

the secondary literature has long demanded a more detailed account, or a systematictheological interpretation, of the complete works of the icelandic theologian and religious author magnús eiríksson (1806–81). the limited scholarship that does exist on eiríksson1 and on Kierkegaard’s relation to him2 is marred by generalizations and oversimplifications, particularly with regard to Eiríksson’s theological stance, which is commonly characterized as a form of “(neo-)rationalism.” if (Kierkegaard) researchers continue to lack interest in eiríksson and in the Kierkegaard–eiríksson encounter, this may perhaps be explained by the fact that Kierkegaard fought his battles with his fellow Copenhagener exclusively in his journals and papers. one result of this fact is that neither eiríksson’s name nor direct reference to any of his writings can be found in Kierkegaard’s published works.3 For a general introduction to eiríksson’s life and thought, see Herman H.l. Schwanenflügel, “Magnus Eiriksson,” Det nittende Aarhundrede: Maanedskrift for Literatur og Kritik, vols. 1–6, ed. by georg Brandes and edvard Brandes, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877, vol. 6, pp. 266–94; Hans vodskov, Spredte Studier, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1884, pp. 31–40; H. pjetursson, “magnús eiríksson,” Teologisk Tidsskrift for den danske Folkekirke, ny række, vol. 3, 1901–02, pp. 116–43; eiríkur albertsson, Magnús Eiríksson. Guðfræði hans og trúarlíf, reykjavik: Kostnað Höfundar 1938; Carl Henrik Koch, Den danske idealisme. 1800–1880, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2004, pp. 292–8 and gerhard schreiber, “eiríksson, magnús” (in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vols. 1–28, ed. by Friedrich wilhelm Bautz and traugott Bautz, nordhausen: verlag traugott Bautz 1975–2007, vol. 28 (2007), columns 517–38), which contains a bibliography of eiríksson’s writings. particularly instructive, moreover, is eiríksson’s own retrospective account of his work as an author, which he published under the title “my activity as an author” (“min Forfattervirksomhed”), in Flyvende Blade for Literatur, Kunst, og Samfundsspørgsmaal, ed. by vilhelm møller, vol. 3, no. 11, 1875–76, (June 12, 1875), pp. 81–3; vol. 3, no. 12 (June 19, 1875), pp. 90–3; vol. 3, no. 13 (June 26, 1875), pp. 100–4. 2 see part iii of the Bibliography below. 3 For an indirect reference to eiríksson in Kierkegaard’s Christian Discourses, see david d. possen, “on Kierkegaard’s Copenhagen pagans,” in Christian Discourses and The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 2008 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 17), pp. 35–59, especially pp. 43–7. 1

50

Gerhard Schreiber

While the first part of this article will provide a short overview of Eiríksson’s life, together with an introduction to the main ideas of his major works, the second part will offer a descriptive summary of Kierkegaard’s quarrel with eiríksson. in the third and final part, I will offer an interpretation of Kierkegaard’s relation to and behavior toward eiríksson; and i will assess the meaning and importance of the Kierkegaard–eiríksson dispute for future Kierkegaard research. I. Overview of Eiríksson’s Life and Main Works A. Life Magnús Eiríksson was born on June 22, 1806, the eldest of the five children of eiríkur grímsson (d. 1812), a farmer, and Þorbjörg stephánsdóttir (d. 1841), a pastor’s daughter, in skinnalón, norður-Þingeyjarsýsla, on the northeastern tip of iceland. after graduating from the Latinskole in Bessastaðir in 1829 at the head of his class, eiríksson entered the university of Copenhagen as a theology student in 1831.4 Here he focused mainly on the study and interpretation of the Bible, and soon made a name for himself as a devoted exegete. after passing his “candidate” examination in april 1837,5 again with top marks, eiríksson spent the next few years as a manuduktør, a tutor assisting younger students to prepare for the official exams in theology. For a time Eiríksson enjoyed great demand, particularly in the fields of old and new testament exegesis. From the start of his student years, eiríksson had felt drawn to the rational theology and biblical exegesis of Henrik nicolai Clausen (1793–1877). at the same time, he felt a deep distrust toward grundtvig and his followers, whom he condescendingly labeled “the Catholicizing theologians.”6 eiríksson felt an even stronger antipathy, meanwhile, toward the speculative theology of Hans lassen martensen (1808–84), whose rise at the university coincided with eiríksson’s period of employment as a manuduktør.7 By the late 1830s, martensen’s widely popular lectures on dogmatics had provoked sharp disapproval in eiríksson: he regarded martensen’s biblical exegesis as not only without scriptural warrant, but as “completely arbitrary” as On Eiríksson’s time at the University of Copenhagen and the first few years after his graduation, see his description in Om Baptister og Barnedaab, samt flere Momenter af den kirkelige og speculative Christendom, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1844, pp. iii–Xiii. 5 the Embedseksamen, an exam used to certify “candidates” for appointment to the state Church. 6 eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. vi. while eiríksson retained this aversion to grundtvig throughout his life, he considered Clausen, by contrast, an excellent representative of the “Evangelical party,” whose understanding of Christianity “stood nearest to the Christian truth” (Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. vi). 7 on eiríksson’s dispute with martensen, see skat arildsen, Biskop Hans Lassen Martensen. Hans Liv, Udvikling og Arbejde: I. Studier i det 19. Aarhundredes danske Aandsliv, Copenhagen: gad 1932, pp. 206–11; pp. 274–5; pp. 288–9 as well as l.n. Helveg, “prof. martensens dogmatik og dens angribere (slutning),” in Dansk Kirketidende, no. 22, 1850 (march 3), columns 369–73. 4

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

51

well.8 eiríksson was even more disturbed by the extreme excitement with which martensen’s fashionable theology was greeted by its student audience.9 as the students at Copenhagen grew ever more enthusiastic about speculative dogmatics, they spent less and less time on exegesis. they were thus on the road, eiríksson lamented, to “becoming freethinkers, conscious or unconscious pantheists and selfglorifiers.”10 This opposition to Martensen, fierce from the beginning, was to become the engine that drove almost all of eiríksson’s literary activity between 1844 and 1851. Over the course of this period, moreover, Eiríksson’s attacks on Martensen intensified steadily. this came not least as a result of martensen’s peculiar way of reacting to eiríksson’s writings: instead of responding to the content of eiríksson’s allegations, martensen chose to meet them with lofty silence. at the end of his 1846 pamphlet Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs11 eiríksson capped his polemic against martensen with the threat of a public lawsuit. the aim of this suit would have been to expose martensen as a fraudulent and dishonest teacher, who does not teach the doctrine that he pretends to teach, which in his capacity as a teacher of the church he ought to teach, and which he has tacitly committed himself to teach; as a man, who through his teaching [Lære] uproots and destroys all true faith and religion at their innermost core and deepest root.12

when even these words elicited no response from martensen—a fact that eiríksson attributed to the influence of Bishop Jakob Peter Mynster (1775–1854), who had no doubt “advised [martensen] to be silent”13—eiríksson carried out the above lines’ open threat. He presented the matter in writing to King Christian viii himself, in a June 1847 letter in which he further “complained about the principles and conduct eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. Xi (emphasis removed). it is evident from Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. Xi, p. 336, and from Tro, Overtro og Vantro, i deres Forhold til Fornuft og Forstand, samt til hinanden indbyrdes, Copenhagen: H.g. Klein 1846, p. 81 (note), that eiríksson was in attendance both at martensen’s course on Den nyere Philosophies Historie fra Kant til Hegel (1838–39 winter semester) and at his course Foredrag over den speculative Dogmatik (1838–39 winter semester; on this see also note 48). 9 on this see, for example, Johannes Fibiger’s reminiscences in Mit Liv og Levned som jeg selv har forstaaet det, ed. by Karl gjellerup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1898, pp. 73–4. see also arildsen, Biskop Hans Lassen Martensen, pp. 162–3, as well as martensen’s own account in his autobiography Af mit Levnet. Meddelelser, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1882–83, vol. 2, pp. 3–5. 10 eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. XXXiX. 11 magnús eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, eller det saakaldte “Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System af Dr. Hans Martensen,” i dets forvirrede, idealistisk-metaphysiske og phantastisk-speculative, Religion og Christendom undergravende, fatalistiske, pantheistiske og selvforguderiske Væsen, Copenhagen: Klein 1846. 12 eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, pp. 158–9 (emphases removed). 13 magnús eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, fremstillet efter Dr. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik” og geistlig Retfærdighed, belyst ved en Biskops Deeltagelse i en GeneralfiskalSag, Copenhagen: J.g. salomon 1849, p. ii. 8

52

Gerhard Schreiber

of the government in many other matters, which belong more properly and solely in the realm of politics.”14 Because of the latter complaints, eiríksson found himself charged with lèse-majesté in the form of a so-called Generalfiskalsag, a “public prosecutor’s action.”15 this charge, however, was soon dropped; for on January 20, 1848, immediately after Frederik vii acceded to the throne, a general amnesty was proclaimed.16 eiríksson’s unyielding opposition to martensen harmed his reputation steadily, and greatly reduced the demand for his services as a tutor. This led to serious financial difficulties, particularly since Eiríksson was forced to publish most of his works at his own expense. this precarious situation, together with the deprivation and poverty that went with it, was to become a consistent feature of eiríksson’s life from the 1840s onward. in his hour of need, eiríksson even asked Kierkegaard directly for material support, but this request was refused.17 in 1856, however, eiríksson’s tight financial situation appears to have at least briefly taken a turn for the better, when, thanks to the efforts and support of the icelandic bishop Helgi guðmundsen thordersen (1789–1867), eiríksson’s application for a pastoral appointment on iceland was granted. soon after accepting this position, however, eiríksson tendered his resignation18—a fact that can be traced to the drastic changes that his theology, and above all his understanding of the Bible, underwent during the period of his literary silence (1851–63). From 1863 on, eiríksson’s writings exhibit a radical and ever-intensifying critique of both the Bible specifically and of church doctrine generally, particularly the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. At the same time, the main church figures and theologians in Copenhagen took care to avoid engaging eiríksson or his ideas in public debate. in the face of the continuing silence of “the competent ones”19—a silence criticized by eiríksson’s advocates and opponents alike, and which eiríksson eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. ii; and see also pp. 135–7. on eiríksson as an advocate of political liberalism, see H. Schwanenflügel, “Eiriksson, Magnus,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 4 (1890), pp. 479–82, especially p. 480: “he was a confirmed political liberal.” See also eiríksson’s critique of the state’s treatment of the Baptists in Om Baptister og Barnedaab, pp. 574–90. 15 on the charge against eiríksson, see the texts reproduced in Speculativ Rettroenhed, pp. 87–134. 16 eiríksson was by no means pleased with this outcome, since he was thoroughly convinced both of the validity of his case against martensen and “that here the court was on my side” (Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. iii). ultimately, however, eiríksson came to see the annulment of the Generalfiskalsag as “a sign of god’s sagacious governance,” and came to believe still more strongly that god had “a great purpose” in mind for him (p. 135). 17 see eiríksson’s letter to Kierkegaard of october 14, 1847, and Kierkegaard’s frigid response on the very same day, in B&A, vol. 1, pp. 181–3 / LD, letters 163 and 164, pp. 228–31. Eiríksson’s letter indicates that he had sought and failed to win Kierkegaard’s financial support during the previous year as well. 18 on this see eiríksson’s description in Gud og Reformatoren. En religiøs Idee. Samt nogle Bemærkninger om de kirkelige Tilstande, Dr. S. Kierkegaard og Forfatteren, Copenhagen: schubothe 1866, pp. 17–18. 19 anonymous, Dagens Nyheder, no. 113, 1873. 14

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

53

himself increasingly read as a sign of the rightness of his critique of the church and its doctrine—a number of laypeople with religious interests, such as the religious author andreas daniel pedrin (1823–91)20 and the postal supervisor and author Jørgen Christian theodor Faber (1824–86),21 felt called to take a public stand against eiríksson’s views. in denmark, on the whole, eiríksson’s late writings provoked a wide spectrum of reactions, mainly in the form of anonymous or pseudonymous articles. these ranged in tone from radical rejection at one extreme, to a broad middle of more or less positively disposed reviews, to open professions of sympathy for eiríksson and his message at the other end. in his native iceland, however, eiríksson’s reception was almost uniformly harsh. there his much-discussed book on The Gospel of John22 sparked fierce controversy: not only theologians like Sigurður Melsteð (1819–95),23 director of the Prestaskólann [pastors’ school] in reykjavik from 1866 to 1885, but also the Catholic priests Jean-Baptiste Baudoin (1831–75) and Bernard Bernard (1821–95)24 felt compelled to take a stand against him. in sweden, by contrast, eiríksson’s thought found more fertile soil—thanks above all to the freethinking pastor nils Johan ekdahl (1799–1870), who translated two of eiríksson’s books into swedish.25 It is not by chance that, in 1877, Eiríksson’s final publications appeared in see andreas daniel pedrin, Vor Herres og Frelsers Jesu Christi nye Testament og Magnus Eirikssons reformeerte Jødedom, Copenhagen: n.p. 1874, together with eiríksson’s response to pedrin’s critique: Herr A. Pedrin og Christendommen. Nogle Oplysninger om hans Skrift: Vor Herres og Frelsers Jesu Christi nye Testament og Magnus Eirikssons reformeerte Jødedom, Copenhagen: J.g. salomon 1874. 21 see J.C.t. Faber, Aabent Brev til Danmarks Theologer om Nyrationalismens Forhold til den kristne Tro, Copenhagen: gad 1871, which offers an open-minded assessment of eiríksson’s position. 22 magnús eiríksson, Er Johannes-Evangeliet et apostolisk og ægte Evangelium og er dets Lære om Guds Menneskevorden en sand og christelig Lære? En religiøs-dogmatisk, historisk-kritisk Undersøgelse, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1863. 23 see melsteð’s highly critical review of eiríksson’s book on The Gospel of John in Þjóðólfur, vol. 17, 1864–65, no. 29, pp. 115–16; nos. 31–2, pp. 123–5; nos. 35–6, pp. 140–1; nos. 42–3, pp. 168–70; nos. 45–6, pp. 182–4 and nos. 47–8 pp. 188–9. 24 Baudoin and Bernard, originally from France, were the first Catholic priests to serve in iceland after the reformation. they arrived in 1857 (Bernard) and 1858 (Baudoin) respectively, and built a small chapel at the Landakot farmstead near reykjavík (see gunnar F. guðmundsson, Kaþólskt trúboð á Íslandi 1857–1875, reykjavík: sagnfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands 1987). For Baudoin’s critique of eiríksson, see “Hinir katólsku prestar í reykjavík,” in [J.-B. Baudoin], Jesús Kristr er guð. Þrátt fyrir mótmæli herra Magnúsar Eiríkssonar, reykjavík: Hinir katólsku prestar 1867; and eiríksson’s response to it, entitled Nokkrar athugasemdir um Sannanir “katólsku prestanna í Reykjavík” fyrir guðdómi Jesú Krists, Copenhagen: páll sveinsson 1868. 25 Johannis Evangelium. Är det en äkta apostolisk bok och är dess lära: att Gud är vorden menniska, en sann och kristlig lära? En Religiös-Dogmatisk Historisk-Kritisk Undersökning, Stockholm: L.J. Hiertas 1864 and Läran om dopet, stockholm: l.J. Hiertas 1865 (the swedish translation of magnús eiríksson, Hvem har Ret: Grundtvigianerne eller deres Modstandere? og Hvad har Christus befalet om Daaben? Nogle orienterende Bemærkninger, Copenhagen: e.l. thaarup 1863). 20

54

Gerhard Schreiber

Swedish newspapers and journals—most prominently in the journal Sanningsökaren or “the truth-seeker.” eiríksson’s critical attitude toward theology and the church, and his unshakable conviction that he was acting in the service of “the love of truth,” are perhaps best epitomized in his public appearance at the Fourth nordic Church Conference in Copenhagen on september 5–7, 1871,26 where he addressed “the relation of neoRationalism to the Christian Faith,” the conference’s first theme. Unlike the speakers before him, who had sought to establish what “neo-rationalism” means, eiríksson argued that it was far more important to ask what is meant by “Christian faith”—and whether the faith proclaimed by the church truly coincides with the teachings and faith of Jesus Christ himself. after his talk was repeatedly interrupted by both the audience and the moderators, eiríksson at last appealed directly, before all present, to “the Lord of Heaven and Earth,” finishing his prayer with the following words: Help me and all who seek Your truth to find it, and to spread it among the people in order to bring them to you, you who are the light and the life, the eternal source of truth and bliss; for the people are so distant from you. Father, forgive my sins, be gracious to me and hear my prayer!27

this resolute and unbending challenge to the leaders of the church brought eiríksson numerous expressions of respect and sympathy, and contributed to the formation of a circle of sponsors, who—without necessarily subscribing to eiríksson’s “religious views”28—sought to remedy his difficult financial situation. Had these supporters and friends not arranged a modest annuity to supplement his state pension during this period, Eiríksson would surely have suffered acute financial distress during his final years as well. In mid-1878, Eiríksson was even provided with funds to make a brief return to iceland: the homeland that he had not seen since 1837, and which he had been forced to postpone visiting until, in the end, his failing health made such a visit impossible. after his death on July 3, 1881, at Frederik’s Hospital in Copenhagen, eiríksson’s friends set up a mounted bust on his grave in garnisons Kirkegård.

the “4. nordiske kirkemøde.” see magnús eiríksson, Forhandlingerne paa det fjerde Nordiske Kirkemöde i Kjøbenhavn den 5., 6. og 7. September 1871. Udgivne af den danske Bestyrelse ved Mødets danske Sekretær (i.e. K. Madsen), Copenhagen: gyldendal 1871, pp. 40–68. on eiríksson’s appearance and behavior at the “4. nordiske kirkemøde,” see, for example, Hans Friedrich Helveg, “om ankerne over det nordiske Kirkemøde,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 42, 1871 (october 15), columns 659–66 and m. Chr. levinssøn, Magnus Eiriksons “Restancer” i “Folkets Avis” og paa det nordiske Kirkemøde, Copenhagen: nørrebroes Bogtrykkeri 1872. 27 As recorded in the official shorthand report of Eiríksson’s speech in Forhandlingerne paa det fjerde Nordiske Kirkemöde i Kjøbenhavn, p. 51. Compare the tendentious and rather dramatized report of eiríksson’s speech and the audience’s reaction by matthías Jochumsson, “dvöl mín í danmörku 1871–1872,” Iðunn, vol. 1, 1915–16, pp. 258–65. 28 as they expressly declared in their Indbydelse til at bidrage til at understøtte Magn. Eiriksson: Kbh. d. 11 Nov, Copenhagen 1872. 26

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

55

B. Main Works eiríksson’s writings may be divided into two phases: the period of his dispute with martensen (1844–51) and the period of his intensifying critique of the Bible and church dogma, especially the dogma of the divinity of Christ (1863–73).29 the intervening years may be characterized as a period of “literary silence,” since during that time eiríksson published only occasional magazine and newspaper articles,30 along with two brief and seemingly quite whimsical pseudonymous books.31 1. The Period of the Dispute with Martensen (1844–51) eiríksson’s work as manuduktør from 1838 to 1847 left him with little time for literary activity. this changed, however, in the early 1840s, when eiríksson grew alarmed at the Church’s mounting repression of the Baptist free church movement. this movement had gotten its start in denmark in october 1839, under the leadership of peter Christian mønster (1797–1870), and had grown steadily ever since. soon the Baptists’ practice of adult baptism was challenged by a so-called Kancelliplakat, a royal edict, issued on december 23, 1842, requiring Baptist parents to baptize their children in infancy. At first, the church authorities were asked to proceed with caution, and refrained from leveling the fines dictated by the edict.32 yet when this caution failed to bring the Baptists into line, Bishop mynster declared himself in favor of forced baptism, and a number of pastors soon put the latter policy into practice. after nicolai Faber (1789–1848), Bishop of odense, published a treatise on the Baptist controversy,33 martensen followed suit with a book of his own; though martensen’s actual position on forced baptism remained unclear.34 martensen’s entry in distinguishing between these two phases, i follow eiríksson’s own division of his works in “Min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 93. For a slightly different classificatory scheme, see pjetursson, “magnus eiríksson,” p. 139, and vodskov, Spredte Studier, pp. 33–7. 30 see, for example, magnús eiríksson, “wartburg,” Illustreret Magazin, vol. 2, 1854, no. 36, pp. 283–4 and no. 38, p. 301; “Brigham Joung,” Illustreret Magazin, vol. 2, no. 36, 1854, pp. 281–3 and no. 37, pp. 290–2 and “endnu et indlæg i sagen: dr. s. Kierkegaard contra Biskop martensen m. Fl.,” Avertissements-Tidende, nos. 82–6, 1855 (april 10–14); no. 89 (april 18) and nos. 91–3 (april 20–23). 31 [adam Homo], Epistel eller Sendebrev til den Herre “Intrepidus” (?) angaaende H. M. Kongens Ægteskab og Reise i Jydernes Land, Copenhagen: zuschlags Boghandling 1852 and [lars maagensen], En liden epistel til hvidtölsbrygger Hans Mikkelsen, i Kallundborg, indeholdende en chemisk undersøgelse af hans “hvidtøl,” Copenhagen: møller 1852. 32 on the persecution of the Baptists, see Den Danske Kirkes Historie, vols. 1–8, ed. by Hal Koch, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950–66, vol. 6, pp. 305–10; see also eiríksson’s description in Om Baptister og Barnedaab, pp. Xii–Xiii; pp. 95–8. 33 nicolai Faber, De anabaptistiske Bevægelser i Danmark betragtede fra det christelige og kirkelige Standpunct, odense: g. Hempels Forlag 1842. 34 Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Daab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843. this book focuses on the systematic-theological justification for the practical-theological legitimacy of infant baptism, and thus involves a radical critique of the Baptist outlook and practice of adult baptism. martensen later recalled that, although he did not mean to support mynster’s practice of forced baptism, he “could very well understand his [mynster’s] standpoint” (martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, p. 72). 29

56

Gerhard Schreiber

into the discussion did suffice, however, to give Eiríksson an opportunity not only to speak up on behalf of the persecuted Baptists but also to voice publicly his opposition to martensen’s account of baptism and to his speculative theology in general. eiríksson gave voice to his views in On Baptists and Infant Baptism (1844),35 his first publication: a 750-page-long book devoted to exposing the un-Christian character of the persecution of the Baptists by the danish church and state: to use any weapons other than intellectual ones in the intellectual and particularly Christian domain demonstrates that the Christian-spiritual life is more or less falsified and counterfeit in those who do or exhort such things. no doubt an aggressive spiritual battle can be consistent with the supreme law of love; but an external constraint, oppression, and deprivation of property, liberty or life can in no way be compatible with it. Therefore he who fights according to the principles of Christian charity will never, can never deprive anybody of such things, not even those against whom he has most vehemently fought or will fight with his intellectual weapons. But what a Christian individual will not and cannot do without breaking the fundamental law of Christianity, neither the church nor a whole community will be able to do without committing the same transgression....when, therefore, the Church transgresses and annihilates as far as possible—in order to be Christian—the law of charity that is the very essence and foundation of Christianity, then, i say, it manifestly works its own destruction as a Christian Commonwealth; and the more it has been able to establish this principle of intolerance and unfriendliness, the more it already has proven that it is no longer a Christian commonwealth, except in name.36

appealing to the Bible as the “basis” for his argument,37 and emphasizing that he himself was no member of the Baptist movement,38 eiríksson defended the right of Baptist parents to postpone their children’s baptism. He attempted to document historically, moreover, that the practice of infant baptism was neither commanded by Jesus nor of apostolic origin, but was introduced much later into the church.39 the present-day—and to that extent “un-Christian”—practice of infant baptism should therefore be abandoned, eiríksson argued, and replaced with a purely formal “church induction ceremony” or “upbuilding ceremony.”40 turning away from the practice of infant baptism, eiríksson next sought to expose and refute its theological underpinnings, as they appear in the “Faberian-martensenian account of baptism.”41 not only, claimed eiríksson, does this account have no basis in the Bible,42 but it is eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab. ibid., p. XiX; see also pp. 287–9 and pp. 562–672. eiríksson sought to distinguish the Baptist movement from the anabaptist movement on both historical (pp. 3–31) and dogmatic (pp. 69–84) terms, and so to prove the illegitimacy of applying to the Baptists the laws once used to suppress the anabaptists. 37 ibid., pp. XX–XXvi, especially pp. XX–XXi. 38 ibid., pp. 551–62, as well as eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. Xii–Xiii. 39 eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab, pp. 467–538, together with the summary on pp. 538–62. 40 ibid., p. 540. For liturgical recommendations for such a ceremony, see pp. 545–51; see also pp. 571–74. 41 eiríksson’s summary of this account’s main features can be found in ibid., pp. 317–20. 42 ibid., pp. 434–67; pp. 601–26. 35 36

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

57

also predicated on the “magical effects” of infant baptism, as, for example, when the practice is referred to or described as “an immersion in the essence of god,” or as a transition to a “new nature.”43 we have mentioned that not only martensen’s account of baptism, but also his speculative theology as such—and, indeed, speculation itself—were targeted by eiríksson’s radical critique in On Baptists and Infant Baptism, on the grounds that both speculative theology in particular and speculation in general lead to “pantheism” and to the “self-deification” of humanity.44 to support this charge, eiríksson reproduced a number of passages from his own notes to martensen’s then still unpublished Lectures on Speculative Dogmatics (winter semester 1838– 39), focusing on martensen’s commentary on the doctrine of the trinity.45 while On Baptists and Infant Baptism was otherwise positively received,46 martensen responded harshly in a newspaper article titled “literary piracy.”47 Here martensen condemned eiríksson’s unauthorized publication of his lectures—but offered no comment on the content of eiríksson’s accusations.

ibid., pp. 321–55; pp. 368–72. ibid., pp. XXvi–Xli; pp. 234–5; pp. 281–2; pp. 436–8. By contrast, in a note on pp. XXXviii–XXXiX, Johannes de silentio’s Fear and Trembling is explicitly praised as a rare present-day critique of speculation; see also pp. Ciii–Civ. Here eiríksson makes no mention of Johannes de silentio’s account of faith as “by virtue of the absurd,” which he would later criticize so radically. 45 eiríksson, Om Baptister og Barnedaab, pp. 336–45 as well as Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 87 note. 46 the reviews in Teologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 8, 1844, pp. 399–404; Fædrelandet, no. 1572 and nos. 1590–91, 1844; Kjøbenhavnsposten, no. 92 (april 20), 1844 and no. 104 (may 6), 1844; (Hallesche) Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, no. 2, 1845, columns 789–91 and Aarhuus Stifts-Tidende, no. 89 (may 21), 1844, were mainly positive. ludvig Helveg’s review in For Literatur og Kritik, vol. 2, 184), pp. 305–14 was more critical. also worthy of mention are two anonymously published pamphlets prompted by Om Baptister og Barnedaab: the wholly critical Epistola eller Sende-Brev til Sr. Magnus Eiriksson fra en anden gammel Landesbypræst. Til Publici videre Nytte og Fornøielse nu til Trykken befordret, Copenhagen: H.g. Klein 1844 (ASKB u 36), which parodied eiríksson’s polemical style, and a pamphlet soon published in response: En Privatskrivelse til den anden gamle Landsbypræst, fra hans gamle Ven, den første gamle Candidat, som Commentar over Herr Pastors Epistola til Sr. Magnus Eiriksson, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1844. 47 Hans lassen martensen, “litterairt uvæsen,” Berlingske Politiske og Avertissementstidende, no. 115 (april 29), 1844. martensen here denounces eiríksson’s “preprinting” of his Foredrag over den speculative Dogmatik as “a violation of intellectual copyright.” the paragraphs cited by eiríksson were articulated only “in a rough and incomplete state,” and were not intended for a “scholarly readership.” they were “only a kind of mnemonic device; they attain their value only by means of the free verbal exchange between a lecturer and his listeners. out of context, they can furnish only an incomplete impression, not even half-true, of their meaning.” eiríksson’s biting response to this critique can be found in a newspaper article titled “academisk væsen,” in the Berlingske Politiske og Avertissementstidende, no. 124 (may 9), 1844. For more on martensen’s critique, see his foreword to the second edition of Den christelige Daab, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1847, pp. iv–v. 43 44

58

Gerhard Schreiber

while composing On Baptists and Infant Baptism, eiríksson had already begun playing with the idea of addressing “one of the other Christian dogmas that is presented by the church in a one-sided and incorrect, or indeed false and un-Christian, manner.”48 ultimately eiríksson decided that it would be more appropriate and instructive to write something “preparatory” instead: “something that could contribute to clarifying the religious concepts in general.”49 His treatise Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief (1846)50 attempted just such a clarification of the basic notions of Christian faith. Here eiríksson analyzed faith in relation to the two “extremes,” superstition and unbelief, on the one hand, and in relation to “reason” [Fornuft] and “the understanding” [Forstand], on the other. eiríksson’s propaedeutic analysis in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief would later serve as the foundation and starting point for his attack on Kierkegaard in Is Faith a Paradox and “By Virtue of The Absurd”? (1850).51 in the latter book, eiríksson criticizes the notion of faith as “paradox” in Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846). in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief, however, this notion is not even an object of analysis.52 instead, eiríksson simply compares the two Climacus books Philosophical Fragments (1844) and Concluding Unscientific Postscript positively to the church’s “wretched faith in authority,” which threatens to level all individual decisions. the Climacus books, by contrast, emphasize the individualized and unexternalizable components of the faith process in every human being.53 like Climacus, eiríksson considered it an unshakable truth that “each person has faith on his own, and not by means of a foreign faith, not by means of another’s faith.”54 at the same time, eiríksson directed a brief but harsh critique at the account of faith as “by virtue of the absurd” that is set forth by Johannes de silentio in Fear and Trembling.55 Both in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief and in Is Faith a Paradox and “By Virtue of the Absurd”?, eiríksson characterized the notion of faith “by virtue of the absurd” as an extreme version of credo quia absurdum est or “i believe because it

eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. iii. eiríksson, “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 90. 50 eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro. 51 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?: et Spørgsmaal foranlediget ved fælles Opbyggelse for Jøder, Christne og Muhammedanere, af bemeldte Troes-Ridders Broder, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1850 (ASKB 831). 52 the fact that the concept “paradox” does not appear even once in Tro, Overtro og Vantro firmly contradicts Eiríksson’s own retrospective account of his critique of Kierkegaard in Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder belyste ved Hjælp af Dr. Martensens Skrifter samt Modskrifterne, tilligemed 75 theologiske Spørgsmaal, rettede til Dr. H. Martensen, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1850 (ASKB 654), p. 16 note. 53 see eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. 106–9 note, where eiríksson lists various chapter headings and main theses in the Climacus writings, and then—to provide an illustration of the “many interesting and compelling passages” in the Postscript—cites the passage SKS 7, 55.5–56.4 / CUP1, 50–1, from the chapter “the speculative point of view,” in its entirety. 54 ibid., p. 105 (emphasis removed). 55 see especially SKS 4, 131–2, 142–4, 150–2 / FT, 35–6, 48–50, 56–8. 48 49

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

59

is absurd,” the dictum attributed to tertullian.56 if “the absurd” is thereby made into “the fundamental principle and ground of faith,” eiríksson wrote, then one has established an entirely false principle of faith, which not only is bound to lead to the most unrestrained superstition, in that as a rule one is supposed to believe everything that is absurd, precisely because it is absurd and by virtue of its absurdity. in so doing, however, one has in principle also nullified the true concept of faith, in order to set a false concept in its place.57

the true religious and Christian faith must by no means be understood as opposed to reason. For true faith must “absolutely be a rational faith”58; reason is no “enemy of faith,” but is instead “its closest and most natural ally, its organ and its necessary condition.”59 in keeping with the german etymology of “reason”—Vernunft from vernehmen, that is, “to apprehend,” “to sense,” “to feel”—reason is, for eiríksson, an essentially “receptive faculty.” Reason is “the sense for the infinite and eternal; the sense for the higher ideas...the sense with which we apprehend god and his revelations both within and without us.”60 reason is thus not only “the medium, the connecting link,” by which free and rational individuals unite themselves with “the higher spiritual essence”;61 the “sense of reason” is similarly “that through which the human being receives the workings and revelations of god.”62 in contrast to this essentially receptive-passive and immediate activity of reason, the “subjective understanding” represents the essentially active faculty, by which we conceive or understand the “immediately received objective” objects of understanding that reach us via reason or sensory perception.63 if the understanding is in this sense already “a superior faculty,” it can become “still more superior” when it makes itself subservient to reason as regards what is higher and spiritual. when the understanding thereby “heeds the

eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 56. Compare Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, p. 15 and pp. 22–3 note, where eiríksson, writing under the pseudonym theophilus nicolaus, applauds the dictum credo quia absurdum est as an insightful expression of the intellectual inconceivability of the object of faith (as we will see in section ii below). Here it should be noted that the phrase credo quia absurdum est is not actually found in tertullian’s writings. its ascription to tertullian is most commonly based on the following passage in his book De carne Christi liber, § 5.4: “The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed—because it is shameful. the son of god died: it is immediately credible— because it is silly. He was buried, and rose again: it is certain—because it is impossible” (Q. s. F. tertullianus, De carne Christi liber, ed. and trans. by e. evans, london: s.p.C.K. 1956, pp. 18–9). 57 eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. 58–9. 58 ibid., p. 93; compare p. X and pp. 10–11. 59 ibid., p. Xi (emphases removed). 60 ibid., p. 27 (emphases removed). 61 ibid., p. 39. 62 ibid., p. 85 (emphasis added). 63 ibid., p. 40. 56

60

Gerhard Schreiber

voice of reason,” it may “be lifted up into a higher region, and be transformed into a higher understanding, an understanding of and insight into matters divine.”64 whereas in “unbelief” the “mere understanding” is dominant, and presumes to be the “judge” of faith (and hence “unbelief” in essence represents only “an assuming and knowing” grounded in “proofs of the understanding”), in “superstition” the understanding is, by contrast, “judged and excluded.” yet reason, too, is “not given appropriate regard” in superstition,65 for here faith refuses to recognize that its own relation to reason constitutes the “limit”66 that it cannot pass beyond without becoming eo ipso a “limitless” superstition. only in “rational faith” are the rational sense and the understanding met with due respect, and positioned in appropriate relation to one another. For “rational faith” apprehends its objects via the medium of reason: “either...indirectly along the historical path, or by means of an immediate revelation of divine matters to the single individuals.”67 the understanding is not thereby (as in superstition) excluded or disparaged; yet in so far as “rational faith” requires no “grounds of understanding,” it can assume and believe something that it is not capable of understanding.68 the object of “rational faith” is thus “that of which we, strictly speaking, have no immediate positive acquaintance, but which along a purely spiritual path makes itself present to the rational sense.”69 to summarize, the “rationality” that eiríksson demands of Christianity and of all true faiths requires that reason becomes the medium through which a human being receives the objects of his faith: “reason is the passage, the channel, along which the spiritual, the divine comes to us.”70 Hence the criterion whereby an object can be judged an object of the true faith is precisely this: that the object in question “must address the uncorrupted rational sense according to its essence.”71 in “my activity as an author” (1875),72 eiríksson is able to suppose, regarding the basic idea of Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief—and thereby expanding on what is written there—that reason is perfectible through faith inasmuch as true faith “comes to the aid” of reason, and so “completes” a human being’s “acceptance” of the higher spiritual things that are received by the rational sense: for the higher spiritual things, which we receive by means of the rational sense, are conceived or understood, strictly speaking, either not at all or only quite imperfectly.... Hence faith is so far from being superfluous, or from standing in hostile opposition to ibid., p. 47; see also p. 95. ibid., pp. 49–50 (emphases removed). 66 ibid., p. 24; compare p. 58 and p. 93. 67 ibid., p. 93. 68 ibid., p. 93; see also pp. 93–4. 69 ibid., p. 58. 70 this is eiríksson’s formulation in “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 90. in Tro, Overtro og Vantro, eiríksson adds “that God has given humanity a lodestar, an inner light” (p. 84). 71 eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 59. nothing that contradicts the “rational sense” can “belong to the region of faith.” 72 magnús eiríksson “min Forfattervirksomhed,” Flyvende Blade for Literatur, Kunst, og Samfundsspørgsmaal, vol. 3, no. 11 (June 12, 1875), pp. 81–3; no. 12 (June 19, 1875), pp. 90–3 and no. 13 (June 26, 1875), pp. 100–4. 64 65

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

61

reason, that it in fact comes to reason’s aid, supplies its lack, completes our acceptance of and conviction about the higher spiritual essence, which at first presented itself to the rational sense and was immediately understood or received by it, and then was taken up by reason’s sister and ally, faith, by means of which the object’s acceptance grew firm and unshakable.73

eiríksson’s peculiar conception of reason should be enough to warn us away from all unreserved characterizations of his theological position as “neo-rationalism.”74 the rationalist label was already attached to eiríksson during his lifetime,75 and was destined to become a recurring motif in the secondary literature.76 yet if his theological standpoint has long been referred to or interpreted (often unreservedly) as “rationalism,” this can most likely be traced to eiríksson’s deep connection to Henrik nicolai Clausen, his teacher of theology. in point of fact, however, eiríksson’s debt to Clausen’s rationalistic outlook does not appear to have been strong enough to lead him to adopt Clausen’s conception of reason as his own.77 ibid., no. 12, p. 90. see also eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 21; pp. 42–3; p. 58 and the conclusion on pp. 92–5. 74 eiríksson was well aware of the peculiarity of his conception of reason, as he indicates for example in Gud og Reformatoren, pp. 76–8, note. In a note to his definition of “reason” as “the sense for the higher, spiritual, and eternal” (p. 76; compare Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 27), eiríksson explains: “i can assume that the vast majority of this book’s readers possess a very different conception of the human faculty that we have called ‘reason’ than the one we have offered” (p. 76, note, emphases removed). 75 on this see the preface to Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. v–vii, where eiríksson protests against others’ assessment of his “direction and religious outlook” (in their reactions to Om Baptister og Barnedaab) to the effect “that i am fundamentally unbelieving, a notion that they express with the label ‘rationalist’ or the like,” and that his “unbelief (rationalism)” has now simply appeared with great “enthusiasm” and “in a new shape.” see also, in Kierkegaard’s draft of a reply to theophilus nicolaus (Pap. X–6 B 68, pp. 73–4), Climacus’ astonishment that theophilus nicolaus, “a declared rationalist,” has explicitly countenanced “direct communications from god, higher intimations, visions, revelations.” we will discuss this last pronouncement in section ii. 76 as, for example, in Den Danske Kirkes Historie, ed. by Hal Koch, vol. 6, p. 322; Frederik nielsen, “eiriksson, magnus,” in Kirke-Leksikon for Norden, vols. 1–4, ed. by Frederik nielsen, aarhus: Jydsk Forlags-Forretning 1900–29, vol. 1, p. 733 and niels thulstrup, “martensen’s Dogmatics and its reception,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 181–202; p. 194: “he was an extreme rationalist.” 77 Carl Henrik Koch points to Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi’s (1743–1819) definition of reason [Vernunft] as “the apprehension [Vernehmung] of the suprasensible” as a possible source for eiríksson’s account, see Koch, Den danske idealisme, pp. 294–6. a far more plausible direct influence on Eiríksson’s account of reason seems to be, however, Jakob Peter Mynster: particularly the final chapter in Mynster’s article “The Development of the Concept of Faith,” (see J.p. mynster, “udvikling af Begrebet tro,” in Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs philosophiske og historiske Afhandlinger, vol. 1, Copenhagen: Kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab 1821, pp. 200–36. (the citations that follow use the pagination in J.p. mynster, Blandede Skrivter, vol. 1, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852, pp. 3–35)) which 73

62

Gerhard Schreiber

the book Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs (1846) sets forth eiríksson’s dispute with martensen in the realm of moral philosophy. according to his preface, eiríksson felt compelled to continue and expand his polemic because martensen’s Outline to a System of Moral Philosophy (1841) remained (all too) popular among the students at Copenhagen.78 By contrast, martensen’s dogmatics had fallen into “discredit everywhere”79—an accomplishment that eiríksson credited not least to his own writings, since no one else had discussed martensen’s dogmatics “unreservedly.” Eiríksson qualified this last statement, however, by drawing attention to a conspicuous exception to it, namely, “the Concluding Unscientific Postscript of Joh. Climacus, or magister s. Kierkegaard”: For although he has gone further than i in his opposition to the Church dogma, the tradition, the so-called objective, and although our concepts of faith are greatly dissimilar...we are clearly in essential agreement about the character of the speculative, particularly the Martensenian theology, to which he plainly refers in many places. i can therefore please mr. martensen by informing him that this book has freed him of a group of his followers, namely, among the candidates and advanced students, whom he will scarcely be in a position to convert again, as some of them have informed me directly.80

the goal of eiríksson’s own book is to bring to light “the un-Christian, irreligious, fatalistic, pantheistic or atheistic and self- and humanity-deifying element”81 in martensen’s moral philosophy. Here the accusation of deifying humanity refers above all to martensen’s doctrine of the “personal unity of God and man.”82 according to martensen, “god or the highest good...seeks to assume a personal form in the human individual.” For this reason, god demands “a god-man” from every human individual.83 this demand would of course necessarily be an empty one, a demand that cannot be fulfilled by human freedom, if “the original existing eiríksson cites in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief, and praises explicitly (see Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. 41–2 (note)). In this article, Mynster defines reason—with repeated reference to Jacobi—as the receptive faculty that endows human beings with the capacity for faith, inasmuch as it is the faculty “by means of which the human being receives immediate impressions of supersensible objects” (“udvikling af Begrebet tro,” p. 27). the understanding, meanwhile, is not an “immediate faculty of knowledge” of this sort; for what we wish to understand must already have been given to us by other means: “the sensible things must already be given to us: the sensible things must already have been present in the sense, the higher things in reason” (ibid., p. 33). Through reason, finally, “we apprehend [fornemme] god and his voice, as much as in the inward as in the outward revelations”; and in saying this mynster assents to the view of other “careful thinkers,” who “understand reason in its subjective meaning as receptivity, as a sense for the supersensible” (ibid., pp. 30–1). 78 Hans lassen martensen, Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 650). 79 eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, p. iii (emphases removed). 80 ibid., p. iv, note. 81 ibid., p. vi (emphases removed). 82 martensen, Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System, p. 53 (§ 50). Compare pp. 50–6 (§§ 48–51) to eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, pp. 95–9. 83 martensen, Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System, p. 51 (§ 48).

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

63

unity of divine and human nature” were not already present—or, as martensen elsewhere wrote, “if god were not essentially present in the human soul.”84 according to eiríksson, martensen is here proposing the apotheosis of humanity itself, as eiríksson makes clear in the explication he soon provides: “i.e., if we did not have God’s essence within us, if we were mere human beings and not Gods as well.”85 By means of this “deification of humanity,” not only the opposition between god and man—religion’s necessary condition—but also “all religion” is eo ipso “overturned and nullified.”86 eiríksson’s critical response to martensen’s Christian Dogmatics (1849),87 above all to its dogma of the Trinity, can be found in the first part of his next book, Speculative Orthodoxy (1849),88 whose second part serves to take Bishop J.p. mynster to task for the part he played in the public prosecutor’s action affair of 1848. with regard to martensen’s Dogmatics in general, eiríksson notes that its “basic outlook, standpoint, and method” exhibit no fundamental changes when compared to those of martensen’s earlier lectures on dogmatics: “the most important basic teachings are the same in all essential aspects.”89 in spite of all of his intellectual exertions, martensen continues to fail to grasp the Christian truth “in its most essential character.”90 His Dogmatics are “a monstrosity, neither the one nor the other, but a catch-all of everything possible: Biblical elements, Church orthodoxy, rationalism, Hegelian speculation, gnostic fantasies, and other errors.”91 with regard to martensen’s dogma of the trinity, eiríksson criticizes above all the differentiation between an “essential trinity” (god’s relation and inner ibid., p. 51 (§ 49). eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, p. 96. martensen’s criticism of the “abstract-essential unity” of god and man (Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System, p. 51) makes clear, however, that he in no way supported the leveling of the difference between god and humanity that eiríksson here accuses him of promulgating. this can also be seen in martensen’s critique of Johann gottlieb Fichte’s “moral world-view,” in so far as this worldview ultimately collapses into precisely the mystical notion of an “essential unity of god and humanity” that is mentioned above, and so “nullifies the deepest difference [between God and humanity], and voids the concept of confraternity and coactivity of god with humanity” (p. 53, note). 86 eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, p. 96. turning beyond martensen’s moral philosophy, and recalling martensen’s declaration, in his account of baptism, that “Christ gives himself and the spirit wholly and undivided to each individual” (martensen, Den christelige Daab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal, p. 59), eiríksson goes on to argue that martensen considers “all those who are baptized, and indeed only these, are essentially and personally one with God” (Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, p. 97)—and so are capable of fulfilling God’s will. 87 Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 656). 88 magnús eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed. this book was advertised in Adresseavisen on october 16, 1849, only three months after the publication of martensen’s Den christelige Dogmatik (July 19, 1849). 89 eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. iv (emphases removed). 90 ibid., pp. iv–v; compare especially pp. 65–7. 91 ibid., p. 74 (emphases removed). 84 85

64

Gerhard Schreiber

reciprocal relationship to Himself as a trinitarian god) and an “economic trinity” (god’s relationship to the World as a trinitarian god), which martensen inherits from the dogmatic-theological tradition. in truth, eiríksson responds, martensen is thereby proposing a “double ‘trinity,’ ”92 within which the trinitarian persons are doubled. when, for example, god the son is understood, on the one hand, (in the sense of the essential trinity) as “Logos,” the “all-knowing god,” but, on the other hand (in the sense of the economic trinity) as “Christ,” who possesses only “limited knowledge,”93 then in reality we are dealing with “two sons of God,”94 who cannot be equated with one another. once again, just as in Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs, eiríksson also cites søren Kierkegaard in Speculative Orthodoxy as one of those “exceptional intellectuals” who have frequently expressed their “disapproval” of martensen, indeed their “condemnation” of him, to the public. thus “magister s. Kierkegaard” has “in many places in his writings,” above all in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, “mocked, indeed derided” martensenian theology.95 after Speculative Orthodoxy, eiríksson had no wish to extend his dispute with martensen into further books—unless martensen, or one of his followers, were to make such steps necessary.96 when, however, martensen published his Dogmatic Elucidations (1850),97 in which he responded in detail to criticisms of his Dogmatics by rasmus nielsen (1809–84) and Jens paludan-müller (1813–88),98 and then took note in his preface—and only in his preface—of eiríksson’s critique as well, Eiríksson felt compelled to produce one final book against Martensen, which appeared in print five months later: Cardinal Virtues of the New Danish Theology (1850).99 at the start of this book, eiríksson professes surprise that martensen did not address his criticisms directly, even though in his preface he had singled out

ibid., p. 4. For more on eiríksson’s critique of martensen’s doctrine of the trinity, compare Speculativ Rettroenhed, pp. 4–24; pp. 37–44 with martensen’s Den christelige Dogmatik, pp. 123–38. in both Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. 83 and in Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. 138, eiríksson characterizes martensen’s doctrine of the trinity as a “successive trinity,” in which the elements of god seem to dissolve and disappear by merging into one another. 93 eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. 19; compare also martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 354. 94 eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. 21. see also p. 50 and martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 316. 95 eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. 108, note (emphases removed). 96 ibid., p. 140; see also eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. iii. 97 martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 654). 98 rasmus nielsen, Mag. Søren Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensens “Christelige Dogmatik”: en undersøgende Anmeldelse, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 701); Jens paludan-müller, Om Dr. Martensens christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 709). 99 eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies was advertised on november 16, 1850, martensen’s Dogmatiske Oplysninger on June 14, 1850. 92

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

65

eiríksson for mention as one “who had wanted to test the doctrines himself”100— unlike his other critics, who, according to martensen, had restricted themselves to the preface of his Dogmatics, neglecting “what the Dogmatics chiefly inquires into, namely, the dogmas themselves.”101 in Cardinal Virtues of the New Danish Theology, eiríksson sought to contrast his own critique of martensen with that of nielsen and paludan-müller; and here the measured tone of his polemic is noticeable.102 against nielsen’s consciously Kierkegaardian description of Christian faith as “the paradox” or “the absurdity principle,”103 eiríksson describes himself as agreeing with martensen in principle on this point—that is, with the principle that Christian faith cannot possibly be grounded in absurdity. eiríksson criticizes martensen’s “application” of this principle, however, as “incorrect and false”; and he attempts to substantiate the latter charge by citing passages where faith and reason part company for martensen.104 echoing his position in Speculative Orthodoxy, eiríksson arrives at the close of Cardinal Virtues of the New Danish Theology at a similarly negative overall appraisal of martensen’s Dogmatics105—as his “75 theological questions” for Martensen in the book’s final section demonstrate.106 Cardinal Virtues of the New Danish Theology was to remain Eiríksson’s final written salvo against martensen. martensen, once again, chose not to respond;107 and in his later writings eiríksson mentioned him only incidentally or peripherally, for the most part.108 Almost twenty-five years later, when Eiríksson sent a copy of his martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger, p. 4. However, martensen goes on to declare that eiríksson has fallen prey to “deep misunderstandings.” 101 ibid., p. 5. to eiríksson, the fact that martensen subsequently responded exclusively to the criticisms of Nielsen and Paludan-Müller signified that this strategy “was most convenient” for martensen, since he was incapable of refuting eiríksson’s allegations. on this see eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, pp. 9–10. 102 see eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. 13, where he writes that “a notable self-awareness, refinement, and spiritual maturity” was in evidence in “many places” in martensen’s Dogmatiske Oplysninger. 103 rasmus nielsen, Mag. Søren Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensen’s “Christelige Dogmatik”: en undersøgende Anmeldelse, pp. 27–33. 104 eiríksson Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. iv; and compare pp. 15–47 and pp. 50–9 with martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger, pp. 17–26. 105 Compare eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. 55; pp. 124–32 to Speculativ Rettroenhed, pp. 65–78. 106 eiríksson, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. viii; pp. 132–58. 107 see martensen’s letter to ludvig Jacob mendel gude on november 26, 1850, in Biskop H. Martensens Breve, vols. 1–3, ed. by selskabet for danmarks Kirkehistorie ved Bjørn Kornerup, Copenhagen: gad 1955–57, vol. 1, no. 10, 1955, p. 14: “eiriksen has already written and published a new book attacking me—which i, however, have already put aside.” 108 important exceptions here are magnús eiríksson, “endnu et indlæg i sagen: dr. s. Kierkegaard contra Biskop martensen m. Fl.,” in Avertissements-Tidende, nos. 82–6, no. 89 and nos. 91–3, 1855 and Gud og Reformatoren, pp. 5–11; pp. 64–6. see also eiríksson’s Hvem har Ret: Grundtvigianerne eller deres Modstandere?, pp. 26–41, in which eiríksson criticizes martensen’s 1863 claim that both the nicene Creed (ad 325) and the Chalcedonian Creed (ad 451) “are merely interpretations, or more precisely explanations,” of the earlier apostles’ Creed 100

66

Gerhard Schreiber

book Jews and Christians (1873)109 to martensen, he attached a letter asking him for his appraisal of the book; but martensen responded with a cool rebuff. at the close of his letter of reply, martensen expressed his wish, “in all sincerity,” that “the lord enlighten you and lead you to recognize the truth!”110 2. The Period of Ever-Sharpening Attacks on the Bible and the Dogma of the Divinity of Christ (1863–73) after a 12-year period of literary silence, eiríksson produced a series of writings that diverged markedly from those that had come before. the essential difference here concerns eiríksson’s understanding of the Bible. at no point had eiríksson been a proponent of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of scripture; but it had been the Bible to which he had appealed, throughout his confrontation with martensen, as the final authority for both his own position and his critique of others’ standpoints. Now, however, in his writings from 1863 to 1873, eiríksson progressed to an increasingly radical critique of church dogma in toto, and ultimately broke with it completely. For it had become increasingly clear to him that the very idea of the “deification” of humanity, be it even the “deification” of the single human being Jesus of Nazareth— the idea that he had so radically rejected, and had criticized so harshly, in martensen’s theology—was in fact already contained in the Bible itself, above all in John and in paul’s epistles. as a result, eiríksson felt increasingly compelled not to defend his position as in line with the Bible, but to defend it against the Bible itself and its claims to integrity and authenticity. For it now seemed to eiríksson that the Bible itself needed to be purged of “snake theology,” of the idea of the “deification” of humanity.111 to eiríksson, the Bible was now “a book in which the wheat must be separated from the chaff.”112 even in those writings of eiríksson’s that preceded his period of “literary silence,” it is possible to detect signs of his later, radical approach to church dogma113—even (martensen, Til Forsvar mod den saakaldte Grundtvigianisme, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1863, p. 48). according to eiríksson, the nicene Creed already contained entirely new teachings about Jesus Christ, by which the human being Jesus of nazareth was transformed into an eternal divine person. 109 magnús eiríksson, Jøder og Christne eller Hvorledes blev Jesus af Nazareth betragtet i den ældste Kirke og hvorledes blev han senere betragtet? En populær, historisk-kritisk Undersøgelse, tilegnet de Sandhedskjærlige, Copenhagen 1873. eiríksson sent a copy to H.n. Clausen as well. 110 this letter from martensen to eiríksson is reprinted in pjetursson, “magnus eiriksson,” pp. 137–8. see also martensen’s letter to gude of april 21, 1873, in Biskop H. Martensens Breve, vol. 3 (1957), p. 75 (no. 360). martensen’s three-volume autobiography Af mit Levnet, makes no mention of eiríksson at all. 111 see eiríksson, Gud og Reformatoren, pp. 62–6. 112 eiríksson, “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 100. 113 see, for example, eiríksson’s essay “nogle Bemærkninger til orientering i de nærværende kirkelige tilstande,” in Den Nordiske Folkeskole, no. 5 (February 9), 1849, no. 8 (march 2), no. 22 (June 8), and no. 47 (december 21), particularly the fourth section (“vor tids religiøse tilstande”). see also [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, pp. 120–5 and 168–75, where he prefers the “pre-Christian” position to that

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

67

if eiríksson had then refrained from exploring the full theological or personal implications of his views. As Eiríksson would later reflect in “My Activity as an author” (1875), he was at that point still “a one-sided scriptural theologian, who held firm to everything that was contained in Scripture.”114 For this reason, it cannot truly be said that eiríksson’s thought underwent a “major spiritual crisis,”115 in the sense of a major change, during his 12 years of “literary silence.” it is rather the case that eiríksson’s understanding of the Bible changed decisively; and this change now made it possible for him to continue to intensify his preexisting critical stance, already long-hardened, toward (certain elements of) the church’s dogmatic teachings, and finally to break with them completely. Eiríksson’s intensive preoccupation with the works of the leading figures of the so-called “tübingen school” (particularly Ferdinand Christian Baur and wilhelm martin leberecht de wette, but also Baur’s radical follower, david Friedrich strauss) had no doubt a catalytic influence on this decisive change in Eiríksson’s understanding of the Bible,116 although these figures’ motivations and outlook were of dogmatic-ecclesiastical Christianity. already in Tro, Overtro og Vantro (1846), eiríksson criticized the notion of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the characterization of Jesus as a “godman” as part of his attack on the “Faberian-martensenian account of baptism” (Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. 87–88; pp. 99–101), and took care to speak of Jesus Christ exclusively as “the savior” [Frelseren] (ibid., p. 70; p. 84; pp. 95–101). see also [theodor immanuel], Breve til Clara Raphael, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, pp. 50–89, especially pp. 78–81, in which eiríksson offers a detailed pseudonymous account of why he cannot believe in a triune god or in Jesus as a “god-man.” Finally, on the role of Breve til Clara Raphael in the so-called “Clara raphael feud,” see Fredrik Bajer, Klara-Rafael-Fejden, Copenhagen: topp 1879, pp. 69–79. 114 eiríksson, “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 90; see also p. 100, where he recounts in hindsight that his earlier relation to the Bible was “responsible” for the fact that, in 1845, he did not pursue further his critique of “the system of Church dogma, and above all the doctrines of the trinity and the divinity of Christ.” see also the anonymous review of Speculativ Rettroenhed in Flyve-Posten, no. 249 (october 24), 1849, where eiríksson is criticized for “clinging one-sidedly to the scriptural principle.” as late as in Breve til Clara Raphael (1851), eiríksson attempted to show that the doctrine of incarnation is contained nowhere in the new testament, without casting aspersions on the integrity and authenticity of the Bible itself. 115 vodskov, Spredte Studier, p. 37. For another approach, see pjetursson, “magnus Eiriksson,” (1901–02), pp. 128–9, who emphasizes the (literally) “fundamental” significance of eiríksson’s visions and dreams for the development of his religious outlook. 116 on this, see eiríksson, “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 100, where he writes about his period of literary silence as follows: “during this period i came to know many important things—partly through my own efforts and thought, and partly through certain books, that i had previously had neither the time or nor the motivation to learn.” see also Om Baptister og Barnedaab, p. vii, as well as the preface to Jøder og Christne, p. [ii]. according to the auction catalogue of eiríksson’s library (see Fortegnelse over endel forskjellige gode og velconditionerede Bogsamlinger, pp. 138–70), eiríksson’s library contained works by Ferdinand Christian Baur (see catalogue nos. 432–8); wilhelm martin leberecht de wette (see nos. 944–52 as well as Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 48, note); david Friedrich strauss (1808–74, see nos. 798–803); eduard gottlob zeller (see no. 960); Carl Franz albert schwegler (see nos. 778–9) and adolf Hilgenfeld (see no. 564).

68

Gerhard Schreiber

by no means simply congruent with eiríksson’s effort, in his late work, to undertake his own “historical-critical” approach to the biblical writings.117 eiríksson’s consistent self-understanding, as he expressed it ever more clearly in his later writings, is that of a reformer. “a reformation of the church must begin,” he wrote, “a thorough reform of the prevailing religious ideas.”118 the aim of this reform should be a new, “rational religion,” marked through and through by a positively understood “simplemindedness” and “love of one’s neighbor.” eiríksson’s monograph on The Gospel of John (1863), more than 500 pages in length, seeks to prove the “double inauthenticity” of the gospel of John.119 eiríksson claims not only that this text could on no account have been authored by a palestinian Jew and still less by the apostle John, but also that its representation of Jesus Christ as the son of god, indeed as god Himself, “can by no means be accepted as true and authentic.”120 the image of Christ in John differs entirely from that presented in the first three (synoptic) Gospels: whereas John’s Christ continually glorifies himself, the Christ of the synoptic gospels lays constant stress on the love of god and the love of one’s neighbor. For this reason, eiríksson argues, the gospel of John should not be regarded, historically or dogmatically, as a genuine source of Christian faith. in his book God and the Reformer (1866),121 eiríksson attempts to demonstrate historically that and how the true religion—that is, faith in the single true god—was falsified further and further with the passage of time.122 eiríksson here concludes On the influence of the “Tübingen School” on Eiríksson’s understanding of the Bible, see H. Schwanenflügel, “Magnus Eiriksson,” pp. 287–8. Schwanenflügel emphasizes the following main differences between Eiríksson and the “Tübingen school”: first, Eiríksson “lacked almost all of the tübingen thinkers’ historical apparatus”; second, whereas the tübingen thinkers undertook “the scholarly task” of detecting the various phases of development in the early Christian Church, eiríksson sought to dispatch “the religious task” of excising everything from the New Testament “that conflicted with his understanding of god and Christ” (p. 287). 118 eiríksson, Gud og Reformatoren, p. Xv; p. iii (emphases removed). see also pp. iii–viii and pp. Xii–Xiv. 119 For a moving positive adaptation of eiríksson’s claims in this book, see the “spiritual testament” of august Johansen, entitled Bibel-Rensning (handwritten supplemented: Om Magnus Eirikssons Værk). Et Bidrag. Efter flere Forfattere, ordnet og fremstillet af August Johansen, Buenos aires 1923, manuscript (119pp.), det Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen (additamenta 468 folio), pp. 47–76. 120 eiríksson, Johannes-Evangeliet, pp. 471–2. 121 eiríksson, Gud og Reformatoren. 122 According to Eiríksson, the falsification of true belief in God—and here one is reminded of the description by Franz Camille overbeck (1837–1905) of the descent from “original Christianity” into “historical Christianity”; or of the later account by adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) of “non-dogmatic Christianity”—took place in three steps. First, impressions of a human being, who was simply a religious “founder” or “reformer,” are commingled with impressions of God. next, the manifold impressions of the “founder” come to distract attention from god and from the inner, immediate relation to him (see Gud og Reformatoren, pp. 30–3). In the third and final step, the falsification of religion is completed as the “founder” or “reformer” comes to be seen as himself “the incarnation of divinity” (see pp. 54–9; pp. 147–50). 117

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

69

that Jesus of nazareth was in reality only a reformer of old testament Judaism; and he laments that his fellow theologians have failed to recognize this “historical fact.” Even Kierkegaard failed to acknowledge the late falsifications of church doctrine and in fact cited the doctrine of the incarnation as the basis for his entirely false notion of faith as “by virtue of the absurd.”123 according to Christ’s own teachings, however, true Christianity is by no means “by virtue of the absurd,” but is instead “in its essence...the truly human.”124 in Could We Love the Neighbor As Ourselves? (1870),125 eiríksson hopes to articulate at last the “greatest and purest love” taught by Jesus Christ and the apostles—and to distinguish his own understanding of Christian love sharply from that presented in Kierkegaard’s Works of Love (1847). in contrast to Kierkegaard’s “exaggerated” and “dialectical” notions of love of the neighbor, which portray it as a “ ‘commanded’ love” (“you shall love your neighbor”),126 Christ instead set forth an “ennobling” and (positively understood) “simple-minded” doctrine of love.127 the treatise Paul and Christ (1871)128 seeks to demonstrate the radical incommensurability of Paul’s doctrine of justification with the teachings of Jesus Christ.129 whereas in paul we meet a repristination of the ancient Jewish theory of the scapegoat, according to which Christ is sacrificed in order to expiate humanity’s sins (once for all time), Christ’s teaching of the true relation to god and of the forgiveness of sins is communicated directly in the “heavenly parable”130 of the prodigal son in luke 15. the farther away in time and space that this doctrine moved from Christ’s palestine, the more diluted it became. in this context, eiríksson sets forth a particularly frank attack on the credibility of the Bible in toto: in many respects, scripture is unbelievable. it is full of contradictions, even as concerns the most important things of all....As a result it is not “holy” either; for nothing that is incomplete and error-ridden can be holy. the supposed holiness and credibility of

For further critical remarks on Kierkegaard, see eiríksson, Gud og Reformatoren, pp. 66–112, especially pp. 80–104. although eiríksson seeks to show the radical contradictions and errors of Kierkegaard’s account, he by no means wishes to “belittle Dr. S. Kierkegaard’s real merits.” 124 eiríksson, “min Forfattervirksomhed,” p. 103. 125 eiríksson, Kunne vi elske Næsten som os selv? Nogle tildeels nye Tanker om Kjærligheden samt flere derhen hørende Skriftsteder, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1870. see tonny aagaard olesen, “the obscure Kierkegaard,” Kierkegaard Studies. Yearbook, 2005, pp. 318–19. 126 eiríksson, Kunne vi elske Næsten som os selv?, p. 5, note. 127 ibid., pp. 45–8. 128 magnús eiríksson, Paulus og Christus eller Pauli Lære om Retfærdiggjørelsen sammenlignet med Christi Lære om Syndsforladelsen tilligemed nogle Bemærkninger om andre paulinske Lærdomme, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1871. 129 ibid., pp. 15–6, together with the summary on pp. 258–60. 130 ibid., p. 64; and see pp. 40–77. in a marked radicalization of his position in Om Baptister og Barnedaab, eiríksson now claims that Jesus did not utter the baptismal command (mt 28:18–20), and that the apostles did not command baptism either (p. 269). 123

70

Gerhard Schreiber scripture has been the cause of much evil (quarrels and rows, hatred, fanaticism, and persecution) and has made so-called “Christians” into humanity’s slaves.131

eiríksson’s last work, Jews and Christians (1873), sets forth the climax of his critique of both the Bible and the dogmatic tradition of the church, by proposing to investigate both of these “historically-critically” with respect to the emergence of the dogma of the “divinity of Christ.” in this book, eiríksson seeks to demonstrate historically the “original agreement of Christianity with the Jewish religion,” by means of an investigation into Jesus’ life and teaching. Jesus, after all, understood himself as “God’s servant and the Jews’ reformer.”132 it never occurred to him to represent himself as god: Jesus Christ did not appear in order to teach a new religion or to discover multiple divine persons in the single, eternal, infinitely divine being. He appeared only in order to give the Jewish religion...a greater inwardness and spirituality. He came in order to teach human beings to worship god in spirit and in truth.133

much as Jesus’ followers considered him only “the messiah,” their “Christianity” was in reality only a “reformed Judaism.” A ruthless falsification of the “original apostolic doctrine” of Jesus commenced at the end of the second century, during a “period of transition”—and reached its climax in ad 325, when the Council of Nicaea confirmed the divinity of Christ as church dogma.134 given eiríksson’s critical attitude toward church dogma, on the one hand, particularly toward the doctrines of the trinity and the divinity of Christ, in contrast to which he stressed (at least in his late work) the essential unity of god and the role of Jesus as (merely) a prophet and a teacher; and given, on the other hand, eiríksson’s further insistence on the rationality of Christian faith, and on freedom of thought and conscience in matters of religion—it should not surprise us to find that eiríksson is often labeled a “pioneer” or “precursor,” in a broad spiritual sense, of the unitarian movement in denmark. in point of fact, this appraisal of eiríksson, which has frequently been advanced by unitarians themselves,135 does appear to

ibid., p. 264; and see pp. 85–8. eiríksson, Jøder og Christne, p. 24; and see pp. 24–32. eiríksson’s book was prompted by Karl otto Herman tryde Kalkar’s (1837–1926) Missionen iblandt Jøderne, Copenhagen: delbanco 1868; on this see Jøder og Christne, pp. 1–14; pp. 256–7. in 1871, Kalkar had served as the president of the “4. nordiske kirkemøde” in Copenhagen, mentioned in note 26 above. 133 eiríksson, Jøder og Christne, p. 254 (emphases removed). 134 ibid., pp. 249–57. 135 See, for example, Ágúst Hakonarson Bjarnason, “Magnus Eiriksson, the first icelandic unitarian” (handwritten manuscript, lecture at Harvard divinity school, may 21, 1923), andover-Harvard theological library, Cambridge, massachusetts (bms 103/5–15), published in icelandic as “um magnús eiríksson,” Skírnir, no. 98, 1924, pp. 39–73. see also stephen Hole Fritchman, Men of Liberty: Ten Unitarian Pioneers, Boston: Beacon press 1944, pp. 163–80, and thorvald Kierkegaard, Magnus Eiriksson og Mary B. Westenholz. To Forkæmpere for Unitarismen i Danmark, Copenhagen: n.p. 1958, pp. 3–9. 131 132

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

71

have some historical validity in this broad sense too, since the modern unitarian movement did not officially make its way to Denmark until 1900.136 II. Kierkegaard’s Dispute with Eiríksson137 A. Kierkegaard’s Reaction to Eiríksson’s Praise Kierkegaard’s dispute with eiríksson began in earnest toward the end of 1846, the year when eiríksson, in the preface to Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs, praised Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript as an excellent sample critique of martensen’s speculative theology.138 Kierkegaard’s first mention of eiríksson by name, however, may already be found in a draft of the preface to Stages on Life’s Way, which Kierkegaard had composed in February 1845 under the title “aide-mémoire (in old style).”139 in a passage that was not preserved in the book’s published version, the pseudonym Hilarius Bookbinder complains about the “unbelieving times” with which he is confronted, in which even “magnus eriksen” is taken “for a pseudonymous name.”140 a similarly casual reference to eiríksson can be found in a footnote to the autumn 1846 journal entry “an unhappy lover in Dansk Kirketidende,” an unpublished response by Kierkegaard to a critique by his thensecretary peter vilhelm Christensen (1819–63) in the journal Dansk Kirketidende.141 136 The first Unitarian service in Denmark was held in Copenhagen on February 18, 1900, led by u. Birkedal (1852–1931), three months before the movement’s founding General Assembly on May 18, 1900. The first president of the Danish Unitarians was Mary B. westenholz (1857–1947), the aunt of Karen Blixen (1885–1962) and a forerunner of the danish feminist movement. it is an irony of fate that the garnisons Kirkegård in Copenhagen, where eiríksson was buried, lies only a stone’s throw away from the “unitarians’ House” erected there in 1927—the official seat of Denmark’s Unitarian Church Society. 137 it should be noted that eiríksson’s name is spelled in a variety of ways in Kierkegaard’s journal entries: “magnus eriksen” (for example, Pap. vi B 6); “magnus eirikson” (for example, Pap. vii–1 B 88); “magnus eiriksson” (for example, Pap. vii–1 B 91); “mag. e.” (for example, Pap. viii–2 B 175); and simply “m.e.” (for example, Pap. vii–1 B 88). 138 see eiríksson, Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, p. iv, note; see also part i above. 139 Pap. vi B 6 / SLW, supplement, p. 517; see also SKS 6, 11–14 / SLW, 3–6. For the dating of the handwritten ms. 28 on which the entry Pap. vi B 6 is found, see SKS K6, 82–4 and B&A, vol. 1, p. 144 / LD, letter 123, pp. 183–4. 140 unfortunately, it cannot be determined which (written) utterance or rumor Kierkegaard is here alluding to—nor, for that matter, whether Kierkegaard felt compelled to defend himself against an attempt to identify “magnús eiríksson” as one of his own pseudonyms. when this entry was written, eiríksson’s only publication to date—apart from his article “præsterne paa island,” Den Berlingske Tidendes Søndagsblad, nos. 11–12, 1842, and one minor article in icelandic, cf. “Hinar helztu bækr útkomnar í Kaupmannahöfn, árið 1834,” Skírnir, vol. 9, 1835, pp. 96–103—was Om Baptister og Barnedaab (1844); and none of that book’s many reviews (see note 46) had cast any doubt on the identity of its author. 141 see Pap. vii–1 B 87, pp. 284–6 / CUP2, 125–7. see also Christensen’s two articles: “troen og dialektiken. imod s. Kierkegaard,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 29 (march 29), 1846,

72

Gerhard Schreiber

Here Kierkegaard ironically characterizes Christensen as an “unhappy lover”142 dogging his heels, inasmuch as Christensen, despite all of his attacks on the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, admits in his own words that he “never can cease loving me.”143 in a note later appended to this statement, eiríksson’s relation to martensen is portrayed as analogous to Christensen’s relation to Kierkegaard. this verdict of Kierkegaard’s—that eiríksson was essentially an “unhappy lover” of martensen—was fated to change in mid-november 1846, when eiríksson’s Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs appeared. For in this book eiríksson publicly interpreted Kierkegaard’s Postscript as a critique of martensen, and thus drew Kierkegaard into his own dispute with martensen. already at the end of November 1846, Kierkegaard’s journals fill with various drafts of a public reply, by means of which Kierkegaard, writing under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus, sought to counter eiríksson’s “unauthorized acknowledgment” decisively.144 in a draft titled “self-defense against unauthorized acknowledgment,”145 Climacus opens by bemoaning eiríksson’s failure to heed his explicit warning, in his appendix to the Postscript (“an understanding with the reader”), against “any approving vehemence” on the part of “a vociferous party-liner” that might affect him—a mere “imaginatively constructing humorist”—or his book.146 echoing his own earlier criticisms of Christensen, Kierkegaard now includes “the raging roland, the cantankerous magnus eirikson” among his “unhappy lovers,” inasmuch as eiríksson “in an appalling manner caresses me in the most affable and appreciative terms.”147 The goal of Eiríksson’s book, it would seem, is to get Martensen fired. Yet when he now, by way of his “admiring acknowledgment,” seeks to involve the Postscript in this “most odious kind of attack on a specific man,”148 eiríksson in effect perpetrates columns 475–82; and “troens dialektik,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 52 (september 20), 1846, columns 841–56. 142 on the phrase “unhappy love[r],” see SKS 2, 31 / EO2, 22, as well as Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 287: “unhappiness is not to love without being loved, but to be loved when one does not love.” 143 Pap. vii–1 B 87, p. 285 / CUP2, 125. Kierkegaard here refers to Christensen’s note in “troens dialektik,” col. 845, where Christensen also declares that he would gladly consign “the humorist” Climacus to satan if that would help him to love Kierkegaard “truly from the heart.” 144 see Pap. vii–1 B 88, pp. 287–98 / CUP2, 127–37; and see also Pap. vii–1 B 89–91. on Kierkegaard’s wish to attribute this response to the pseudonym Johannes Climacus, see Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 290. the dating of the entry Pap. vii–1 B 88 to november 21–2, 1846 (as its terminus a quo) is derived from Kierkegaard’s claim to have read eiríksson’s advertisement for Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, which appeared in the Adresseavisen on november 19 and 20, 1846, “the day before yesterday” [forgaars; mistranslated by the Hongs, at CUP2, 128, as “last year”]. 145 Pap. vii–1 B 88. the draft Pap. vii–1 B 91 is titled “an unhappy misunderstanding.” 146 SKS 7, 561 / CUP1, 475; and see Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 287 / CUP2, 128. 147 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 287 / CUP2, 128. 148 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 289 / CUP2, 129. see also Climacus’ self-description at Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 291 / CUP2, 131: “i am a humorist whose silence means everything and nothing.”

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

73

a “literary assault” on Climacus—as if to make a “bellowing partisan” out of an author who is merely “a poor, defenseless, imaginatively constructing humorist.” in so doing, eiríksson attributes to the Postscript intentions “of which not a trace is to be found in the book, which has not mentioned or discussed prof. martensen with one single word.” rather: insofar as on occasion there is polemicizing against Hegel in my books, insofar as the aim is continually directed at the great amount of lecturing, it is all maintained with diligence, and i also dare to say with such artistic correctness that the book could just as well have been written in germany as in Copenhagen.149

As for the figure of the “assistant professor” or “Privatdocent,” the typical target of Climacus’ polemic, it by no means exists in reality in denmark, but is instead “a genuinely german character.”150 Climacus next supposes that eiríksson’s campaign has succeeded in removing martensen from his post. who, then, should take martensen’s place? martensen is “a distinguished lecturer,”151 Climacus argues, who cannot simply be replaced; every student of theology has reaped “immense benefits by listening to him.”152 perhaps eiríksson has indeed had “magister Kierkegaard” in mind as martensen’s possible successor; yet Kierkegaard is “neither more nor less than what he has claimed to be, an independent thinker....But this is certain: he is not qualified to be a lecturer, and least of all in the sense in which prof. martensen is an excellent lecturer.”153 although eiríksson’s effort was undoubtedly “well intentioned,” and although he exhibited the necessary “passion,” this passion has now risen in eiríksson to a “fanatic bad temper.”154 alluding openly to martensen’s continuing silence in the face of eiríksson’s attacks, Climacus mockingly notes that the one thing eiríksson needs is an opponent. one person alone is not enough for a dispute between two. and so it makes no sense for eiríksson to attempt to draw Climacus onto his side, for even “a hundred on one side are not enough for a dispute.”155 Because of eiríksson’s “attack by way of unauthorized acknowledgment,”156 Climacus feels compelled to respond Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 293 / CUP2, 133. ibid. the Privatdocent corresponds to the present-day assistant professor, who assists by lecturing or tutoring (hence -docent) without a formal university appointment (hence Privat). For more on Kierkegaard’s characterization of this figure, see SV1, vol. 14, pp. 300–1 / M, 290–1. Pap. X–6 B 128, pp. 170–1 / JP 6, 6596. Pap. X–6 B 129. 151 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 291 / CUP2, 131. 152 Pap. vii–1 B 90, p. 299. 153 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 292 / CUP2, 132. 154 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 290 / CUP2, 130. 155 ibid. a good two-and-a-half years later, in entry nB10:87 (march 1849), Kierkegaard himself found reason to complain of the “polemic of silence” with which Heiberg and martensen greeted his attacks. Kierkegaard called this silence “a lie in public,” and viewed eiríksson’s public behavior toward martensen as a natural response to martensen’s efforts to ignore Kierkegaard’s critique. eiríksson was himself “well-served,” Kierkegaard wrote, “in that, because he too received no answer [from martensen], he in a sense entered the same category as i” (SKS 21, 301–2, nB10:87). 156 Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 294 / CUP2, 134. 149 150

74

Gerhard Schreiber

in “self-defense,” with a goal rather different than that of reaching agreement with eiríksson—“since my desire is only to remain in disagreement with m. e.”157 Kierkegaard nonetheless decided to refrain from publishing his protest against eiríksson’s praise; and in a later journal entry, titled “why i did not protest against m. eirikson’s foolish acknowledgment,”158 he attempted to justify this decision. the main aim of Kierkegaard’s “confession,” as the entry’s subtitle has it, is to distinguish between “authorial pride” and “vanity.” whereas “vanity” might try to defend itself publicly against a “klutz” like eiríksson and his “foolish acknowledgment,” in order to extract an “earthly advantage” from the situation, “pride” would not protest in this case, “in order not to earn an earthly advantage, not to win favor in the eyes of men.”159 Kierkegaard now makes clear that a public protest against eiríksson’s “foolish acknowledgment” could only benefit him, not simply because Eiríksson is a “klutz,” considered “dense,” but also because he has “embittered the distinguished ones” against him.160 moreover, if Kierkegaard were not to distinguish his own position publicly from that of eiríksson, martensen would enjoy the prospect of being able to criticize Kierkegaard without naming him, by means of “certain vague utterances about m. e. and his allies.” if Kierkegaard were at that point to respond to such an indirect critique, he would “play the fool,” since his name would not have been mentioned directly, and martensen would be credited as a skilled polemicist. all the same, despite these obvious advantages of protesting against eiríksson’s “foolish acknowledgment”—or, indeed, precisely because of these advantages— Kierkegaard now refrains from publishing his protest out of “pride.” even if most people think of “pride” as little more than “a mean-spirited combination of modesty and vanity,” Kierkegaard knows for his part just what “pride” truly is: “as i see it, pride is something so glorious that if one knows what it is, he is it. pride is humility before god, and humility before god is pride.”161 For this reason, Kierkegaard does not respond to eiríksson’s “foolish acknowledgment.” despite having arrived at this (at the very least) confusing line of reasoning, Kierkegaard felt compelled anew, only a year later, to respond publicly to eiríksson’s praise in Dr. Martensen’s Published Moral Paragraphs. this is clear from two drafts of an article titled “a little explanation,”162 which can be found among Kierkegaard’s papers from 1847. the purpose of this “explanation” is to expunge a rumor then circulating in Copenhagen, to the effect that Kierkegaard had “provided mag. e. with the monies necessary for the publication of his book.”163 eiríksson too had mentioned, in his letter to Kierkegaard of october 14, 1847, that he had heard this Pap. vii–1 B 88, p. 291 / CUP2, 131. see also Pap. vii–1 B 90, pp. 299–300. Pap. vii–1 B 91, p. 303. 158 Pap. vii–1 B 92, pp. 304–6. 159 Pap. vii–1 B 92, p. 304. 160 Pap. vii–1 B 92, p. 305. Kierkegaard continues: “But the judgment of the distinguished ones is of great importance, if one seeks earthly honor and esteem. thus it would have been to my advantage to snub m.e.” 161 Pap. vii–1 B 92, p. 306. Compare SKS 9, 269 / WL, 271: “humility before god is true pride” (cf. 2 Cor 10:15). 162 see Pap. viii–2 B 175–6, pp. 274–8. 163 Pap. viii–2 B 175, p. 275. 157

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

75

rumor during the preceding summer. and so, with regard to his (apparently) renewed plea to Kierkegaard for financial support, Eiríksson made the following suggestion: “if you should fear that it would become public knowledge that you have helped me to oppose martensen and other, more powerful people—then let it be, if you please, a secret.”164 a good two years later, Kierkegaard once again felt compelled to take a public stance against eiríksson. this came in response to eiríksson’s claim in Speculative Orthodoxy (1849) that “magister s. Kierkegaard” had “mocked, indeed derided” martensen and his theology “in many places in his writings,” above all in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript.165 in a journal entry titled “occasioned by a Comment in magnus eiriksson’s latest Book Speculativ Rettroenhed,”166 Kierkegaard remarked that any public reply to eiríksson ought to emphasize that the Postscript was authored not by him but by Johannes Climacus, and that Kierkegaard served solely as the book’s Udgiver, the man responsible for its publication.167 moreover, as Kierkegaard had already noted in the entries cited previously, martensen’s name is nowhere mentioned in the Postscript—“and not only this, the scene is deliberately sustained in such a way that rather than being in denmark it is in germany, where, after all, the speculative thought that ‘goes beyond’ originates.”168 Kierkegaard adds that he does not even know whether martensen or “the danish moderns” in their “ ‘scientific’ accomplishments...have added anything at all new to what any fairly well-read student knows from germany.” Hence if someone wishes to take a stance against speculative thinking “from the side of faith,” it would be “poetically appropriate to keep the scene vague, roughly in germany,” which is precisely what Climacus has accomplished by introducing the figure of the “assistant professor.” as the man responsible for the Postscript’s publication, Kierkegaard was well aware of this fact. He understood this book as, among other things, “a danish protest against modern speculation.”169 B. Theophilus Nicolaus: is Faith a paradox and “By virtue of the absurd”? (1850) We have mentioned in the first part of this article that, in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief (1846), eiríksson had already offered a brief but keen critique of the B&A, vol. 1, p. 182 / LD, letter 163, p. 229. eiríksson, Speculativ Rettroenhed, p. 108, note (emphases removed); see also section i above. 166 Pap. X–6 B 128, pp. 170–1 / CUP2, 161–3. JP 6, 6596. 167 Pap. X–6 B 128, p. 170 / CUP2, 161. see “a First and last explanation,” in SKS 7, pp. 569–73 / CUP1, 625–30. see also Kierkegaard’s response to an anonymous review of Speculativ Rettroenhed, in Flyve-Posten, no. 249 (october 24), 1849, in nB13:86 (SKS 22, 328–9). Kierkegaard expresses astonishment that eiríksson is treated as though martensen’s Den christelige Dogmatik (1849) were “all too high for him,” when elsewhere—and here Kierkegaard refers to the anonymous review of martensen’s Den christelige Dogmatik, in Berlingske Tidende, no. 205 (august 30), 1849—the selfsame book is described as one “that anyone with an ordinary education can read and understand.” (Cf. Pap. X–6 B 129, pp. 171–2.) 168 Pap. X–6 B 128, p. 170 / CUP2, 162. 169 ibid. 164 165

76

Gerhard Schreiber

understanding of faith as “by virtue of the absurd” set forth by Johannes de silentio in Fear and Trembling. against the latter understanding, which presumes that faith is opposed to reason, eiríksson insisted on the complete “rationality” of Christianity and Christian faith. in his book Is Faith a Paradox and “By Virtue of the Absurd”? (1850), published under the pseudonym theophilus nicolaus, eiríksson substantially deepened and expanded this general, abstract critique, adding both a detailed response to the account of abraham in Fear and Trembling (Chapter i) and an alternative interpretation of Johannes de silentio’s parable of the “knight of faith” and the “princess” (Chapter ii). moreover, theophilus nicolaus now drew Climacus’ Concluding Unscientific Postscript into his argument as well, claiming that it also presents Christian faith as “by virtue of the absurd”—inasmuch as Climacus identifies “the absurd,” by virtue of which faith exists, with “the paradox”: god’s incarnation in Jesus Christ (Chapter iii). as eiríksson had done in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief, theophilus nicolaus here condemns Kierkegaard’s notion of faith as “by virtue of the absurd” as an unacceptable intensification of credo quia absurdum est, the dictum attributed to tertullian.170 in the expression “by virtue of the absurd,” “the absurd” seems to have become the only ground and principle of faith, which would lead to the consequence “that whatever is absurd leads human beings to have faith, precisely because it is absurd.”171 in the view of theophilus nicolaus, this can lead only to “the most limitless superstition,” since true faith—precisely in the sense that it is depicted in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief—“must be reasonable in its essence.”172 Johannes de silentio’s position may perhaps appear accurate when viewed “merely from the limited point of view of the understanding”; but “from the higher spiritual standpoint, that is, the religious standpoint,” such a view will only prove false, because with respect to “the higher spiritual laws” the paradox or the absurd have “altogether in eiríksson, Tro, Overtro og Vantro, both of these positions are lumped together on the side of “superstition,” since in both “the absurd or contrary to reason” is confounded with “the inconceivable and inexplicable” (Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 57; and see p. 56: “these sentences are false in and for themselves”). For theophilus nicolaus, on the other hand, credo quia absurdum est is an admissible statement because and to the extent that the “absurd”—as Tertullian had understood the word, and unlike the common understanding of “absurd” today—simply indicates, in this formula, something that cannot be understood by the understanding and therefore can be accepted in faith. on this see [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? pp. 22–3, note. 171 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 16; see also SKS 4, 131 / FT, 34. dissenting from this line of reasoning, theophilus nicolaus argues that the object of faith must be marked off by “another characteristic, different from absurdity,” a characteristic that makes the acceptance of this object in faith “simultaneously necessary and unavoidable”: “if this object also has the property that it cannot be understood or made the object of knowledge, then it must be believed, not ‘because it is absurd,’ but precisely because it does not allow itself to be understood, to be made the object of knowledge [fattes i Viden], to be explained, or to be proven” (Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, p. 16). 172 ibid., p. 18. on eiríksson’s idiosyncratic conception of reason, see the discussion of Tro, Overtro og Vantro in section i above. 170

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

77

no validity.”173 true faith thus cannot be “by virtue of the absurd.” it is rather “by virtue of the higher or the highest understanding and wisdom that a human being may adopt and believe it, even if he does not comprehend it or have it, so to speak, in his power.”174 Notwithstanding every “limitation” and “imperfection” that afflicts human knowledge and cognition in so far as these are human knowledge and cognition, it is nonetheless possible for those who love god to discover that they stand “in an entirely different light...for love of god is the only thing that can communicate the true light, that can provide true knowledge of the spiritual affairs of humankind.”175 through his “faith, which is immediately connected with God,”176 a human being can enjoy the permanent and immediate certainty that what is impossible for humanity is possible for god. this faith has “naturally” been “increased and strengthened only further,” Theophilus Nicolaus added, because “God has from time to time reaffirmed the object of faith by giving the believer a promise or hint of it.”177 the faith of abraham, too, is grounded in just such a divine “promise,” namely, god’s promise to give abraham numerous descendants and the land of Canaan as his dwelling-place. If God’s command to sacrifice Isaac seems to be an abrogation of these earlier “promises,” this appears so only from “the understanding’s limited, worldly point of view,” rather than “from pious Abraham’s standpoint.” abraham’s faith was by no means grounded in “the absurd,” but was grounded instead in his “trust in God’s love of truth and unchangeability,”178 in the fact that god “cannot break his promises.”179 and what is true of abraham’s faith is true also “of every other faith,”180 in so far as such faith is true and genuine. as long as a human being finds himself in a state of “imperfection,” he cannot always comprehend with his understanding “the higher spiritual essence” that he apprehends with his “rational sense,” since this “is not always commensurable”181 with the understanding. at the ibid., pp. 24–5. ibid., p. 25. to put the matter more concretely: if an object appears paradoxical or impossible from a finite human point of view, it cannot be so in reality when it is viewed from “a higher standpoint”—as eiríksson seeks to highlight by appeal to four statements from the new testament: “what is impossible with men is possible with god” (lk 18:27); “nothing will be impossible with god” (lk 1:37); “all things are possible for one who believes” (mk 9:23); and finally, “For those who love God, all things work together for good” (Rom 8:28). 175 ibid., p. 33. 176 ibid., p. 39. 177 ibid., p. 45. it should not be debated whether such a thing has truly happened, or how such a thing could happen: “we must simply assume that this can occur...that such hints, warnings, messages, or whatever one wishes to call them, belong precisely to the sphere of faith and are specially apportioned to the believers” (p. 45). see also p. 143. 178 ibid., pp. 45–6. 179 ibid., p. 48. see also p. 47: “if god has said a, then he must also say B.” 180 ibid., p. 48. in Tro, Overtro og Vantro, pp. 12–17, by contrast, eiríksson was concerned precisely to demonstrate the exceptional character of abraham’s situation, which makes “abraham’s faith unusable as a model for later or present-day believers” (p. 15, emphasis mine). 181 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 50. 173 174

78

Gerhard Schreiber

same time, however, “the higher spiritual laws...can be partly intimated, and partly beheld more immediately, with the eyes of the spirit.”182 these statements about abraham’s faith hold equally for the “knight of faith” whom Johannes de silentio cites as a model for his “principle of absurdity.” according to eiríksson, even the knight of faith does not believe “by virtue of the absurd,” but instead believes “by virtue of the higher rationality”;183 and so the representation in Fear and Trembling of the “knight of faith” and his relation to the “princess” is “only a fiction.”184 For this reason, this same theophilus nicolaus, “brother of the knight of faith,”185 feels called upon to offer his own portrait of the knight of faith, according to which the knight continually believes in the possibility of winning the princess, and at no point assents to its impossibility.186 (as we shall see, this feature of theophilus nicolaus’ knight of faith will prove important to Kierkegaard’s later response.) while the knight of faith’s belief in the possibility of a connection to the princess is based, among other things, on the “certainty or likelihood that the princess fully loves him, or will be able to love him,”187 his faith that he will also win the princess in reality is rather, as in abraham’s case, “by virtue of a higher hint”188 of the matter, provided by god. In his third and final chapter, Theophilus Nicolaus at last brings Johannes Climacus’ Concluding Unscientific Postscript into the fray. Johannes Climacus, too, understands Christian faith as “by virtue of the absurd,” though with a decisive difference: whereas Fear and Trembling specifies neither the content nor the form of “the absurd” in virtue of which abraham or the knight are said to have faith—that is, the book in no way attributes “a definite objectivity” to the “absurd”—in the Postscript, by contrast, “the absurd” appears “with a definite form and a definite ibid., p. 49. ibid., p. 85. 184 ibid., p. 147 (emphases removed). 185 Cf. the book’s subtitle; and see also eiríksson, Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, p. iv: “it is the interest in faith and in the knight of faith, therefore, that is the occasion for this book.” 186 Cf. [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 90. in Fear and Trembling, by contrast, the resignation of the “knight of faith” consists in the fact that he “acknowledges the impossibility [of winning the princess], and at the very same moment he believes the absurd” (SKS 4, 140 / FT, 47). Beyond the fact that such knowledge of this impossibility would require “positive evidence” (Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, p. 76), theophilus nicolaus criticizes above all Johannes de silentio’s “sudden switch” (p. 79) of the two “dispositions” [Sindsstemninger] resignation and faith, which are in fact moments that stand “in the most glaring opposition” (p. 80) to one another. For theophilus nicolaus, on the other hand, faith and resignation work “hand in hand, supporting and complementing one another” (p. 79), even when faith represents “a stronger disposition” than resignation. the best analogy to their relation, theophilus nicolaus suggests, is that between “light and darkness, or light and twilight” (p. 82), inasmuch as the light of faith shines through the darkness of resignation. 187 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 91. 188 ibid., p. 109; see also pp. 117–18; p. 141. according to theophilus nicolaus, the knight of faith nonetheless always holds open the possibility that the opposite might happen too; and this marks the “pious moment of resignation” (p. 112, note) in his faith. 182 183

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

79

content,” which Climacus identifies with “the paradox”: the historical event of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ.189 Theophilus Nicolaus now examines various difficulties that arise from this difference. If “the absurd” is identified with “the paradox,” as in the Postscript, then “the absurd” cannot already have existed in the time of abraham. thus abraham’s faith cannot truly have been “by virtue of the absurd,”190 as Fear and Trembling would have it. even if one were to attribute only “a kind of faith” to abraham, such a faith would then necessarily be “entirely different from the so-called Christian faith.”191 abraham’s faith, and indeed “the pre-Christian faith” generally, can therefore have had nothing to do with “the absurd” or “the paradox,” since Christian faith alone stands in relation to “the absurd” and “the paradox.”192 when Johannes Climacus and (following his lead) such theologians as rasmus nielsen and peter michael stilling (1812–69) identify faith as “the paradox,” continued eiríksson, it is possible to agree with them wholeheartedly—provided that this identification is limited to faith as it is understood “in ecclesiastical Christianity.”193 according to theophilus nicolaus, the doctrinal claims peculiar to the church (for example, the doctrines of the trinity, the Fall, or the satisfaction of Christ) do serve as a group as “decisive enemies of reason.” moreover, much as each doctrinal claim involves “a special paradox” on its own, the claims together constitute a “general paradox” encompassing the sphere of the entire Christian religion, whose center—as Johannes Climacus rightly identifies it—is the doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.194 now, however, theophilus nicolaus claims to have discovered “a Ibid., p. 150. Theophilus Nicolaus here refers most directly to the definition of “the absurd” in SKS 7, 193 / CUP1, 210: “what, then, is the absurd? the absurd is that the eternal truth has come into existence in time, that god has come into existence, has been born, has grown up, etc., has come into existence exactly as an individual human being, indistinguishable from any other human being.” see also SKS 7, 518–19 / CUP1, 570–1. SKS 7, 526 / CUP1, 579. 190 eiríksson, Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? pp. 152–3. 191 ibid., p. 155. why, however, can Christ and the apostles refer to abraham as the father of faith “without further ado,” without suggesting that a change has now taken place in the character of faith? For eiríksson, the answer can only be that the “difference between the pre-Christian and Christian faith” was not a feature of their religious consciousness. 192 ibid., p. 158. according to theophilus nicolaus, the same conclusion can be drawn from Fear and Trembling and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript themselves—albeit “indirectly”: namely, “from the absence of proofs” (p. 159) that might substantiate (in regard to content) the definition of “the paradox” in Fear and Trembling; in the Postscript, the fact that the Christian-religious sphere (“Religiousness B”) is identified explicitly with the “paradoxical-religious” (p. 161). if this is the manner in which the authentically Christian is distinguished from non-Christian “religiousness a,” theophilus nicolaus reasons, then it follows that “the paradox” can only be found in Christianity. 193 ibid., pp. 161–2. 194 ibid., p. 162, where eiríksson cites the passage corresponding to SKS 7, 193 / CUP1, 210, as he had done numerous times before, as a model articulation of the doctrine of the incarnation. in contrast to Climacus, stilling, and nielsen, who regard “the absurd” as wholly opposed “to thought and knowledge” (p. 164)—in so far they regard something as “absurd” only when the object of faith “is not known in a narrow sense” (p. 164)—theophilus nicolaus undertakes an “extension of the concept of absurdity” (p. 163). in his view, “the absurd” and “the paradox” are “not merely paradoxical or absurd to us in view of and in relation to 189

80

Gerhard Schreiber

kind of contradiction” in the writings of Climacus, nielsen, and stilling. the three speak of “the absurd” and “the paradox” only with reference to the incarnation of god in Jesus Christ, god’s “more special relation to the world.” yet they do not reason “that every kind of faith as such” is absurd and paradoxical; for nowhere do they assert “that it would be paradoxical and absurd to have faith in god as a living, self-aware spirit, and [in] his general relation to the world.”195 if, according to the three writers mentioned above, the doctrine of the incarnation alone represents “the absurd,” while religious faith in its generality does not, then it can only be concluded that “the paradox” and “the absurd” are unique to Christianity: The intellectual progress that Christianity provides is supposed to consist in the paradox, in the absurd. in other words, Christianity alone remains to be regarded as something that stands in opposition to humanity’s spiritual essence, so that whereas the simple and unitary faith and religion in its generality attracts humanity’s spiritual essence, Christianity repels the spiritual in humanity, the human spirit, precisely by means of its peculiar dogmas and faith.196

to make clear that “Christianity in its ecclesiastical form”197 indeed repels the spiritual element in humanity, Theophilus Nicolaus finally compares the “concept of god” and “god-relationship,” as both were understood in “the pre-Christian era,” and as both were ultimately reversed and clothed in paradoxical form in “the Christian-ecclesiastical age.”198 Here theophilus nicolaus makes no secret of the fact that his sympathy lies with the pre-Christian concept of god and notion of the god-relationship, since these are still maintained not only by Jews and mohammedans, but also by those few Christians who do not identify with the changes that have been introduced, and who are only satisfied with believing in god as the eternal, invisible, all-encompassing, all-powerful, allknowing, and all-loving Spirit, and feel that they have enough in him alone.199

Climacus’ mistake consists in the fact that he has located “the absurd,” the doctrine of the incarnation of god in Jesus Christ, precisely “in the Christianity handed down to us by our ancestors,”200 and from this starting point has reasoned that Christian faith itself is also grounded in this absurdity. Because Climacus’ “principle of absurdity” for Christian faith thereby rests on an assumption whose truth needs itself to be proven (and which theophilus nicolaus, for his part, already regards as a “false assumption”), Climacus commits the circular fallacy of “petitio principii.”201 yet

understanding or thought in a narrow sense, but also in view of and in relation to reason or the inner spiritual sense for the infinite and eternal” (p. 163). 195 ibid., p. 165. 196 ibid., pp. 166–7. 197 ibid., p. 175. 198 ibid., p. 170. 199 ibid., p. 172; pp. 120–5; p. 179. 200 ibid., p. 175. 201 ibid., pp. 179–80.

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

81

theophilus nicolaus considers it understandable that Climacus should fall into this error: if we categorically assume the dogmas of the Church, then we will readily believe that ultimately there is no other alternative left than to establish the principle of absurdity as the principle of faith, for to every thinking and also religious spirit these dogmas certainly must seem to contain very much that is absurd and paradoxical (at variance with the understanding as well as reason).202

at the close of his book, accordingly, theophilus nicolaus recommends that Climacus “rethink” the matter of “the paradox” once again “from scratch,” following the motto “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 thessalonians 5:21).203 C. Kierkegaard’s Drafts of a Public Reply to Eiríksson’s Critique alongside many journal entries204 that can be identified as reactions to Eiríksson’s critique in Is Faith a Paradox and “By Virtue of the Absurd”?, Kierkegaard’s journals and papers also contain several drafts and fragments of a public reply to theophilus nicolaus,205 attributed in various versions to Johannes Climacus, Johannes de silentio, and anti-Climacus.206 the Climacus version opens with theophilus nicolaus’ charge that acceptance of church dogma leads invariably to the elevation of “the principle of absurdity as the principle of faith.”207 in point of fact, Climacus argues, this contention simply confirms Climacus’ own understanding of Christianity as “the paradox,” and ibid., p. 178. ibid., pp. 180–1. 204 although SKS 23, 182–3, nB17:28 / JP 6, 6597 (“about theophilus nicolaus”) is the only journal entry in which eiríksson’s pseudonym is mentioned by name, it is very likely that the two entries SKS 23, 176–7, nB17:19 / JP 1, 8 (“the absurd”) and SKS 23, 177–8, nB17:21 / JP 3, 3130 (“an observation about something in ‘Fear and trembling’ ”)—both of which were penned shortly after the appearance of eiríksson’s book on march 11, 1850— constitute direct reactions to Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?. this may also be true of the entry SKS 23, 197–8, nB17:50 / JP 3, 3710 (“The Conflict Between ‘The understanding’ and ‘Faith’—purely psychological”). 205 Kierkegaard guessed correctly that “theophilus nicolaus” was a creation of magnús eiríksson. see Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 74 / JP 6, 6598. Pap. X–6 B 82, p. 88 / JP 6, 6601. 206 entries Pap. X–6 B 68–9 / JP 6, 6598–9 and Pap. X–6 B 72–6 form parts of an article signed by “Johannes Climacus” (as is indicated by, among other sources, Pap. X–6 B 75, a “new edition” of Pap. X–6 B 68, pp. 72–5). entries Pap. X–6 B 70–1, meanwhile, are sketches of a response signed by “Johannes de silentio.” Finally, an envelope composed of a folded piece of writing-paper, and bearing the title “regarding theophilus nicolaus” (Pap. X–6 B 77 / JP 6, 6600), contained fragments of a response by anti-Climacus (Pap. X–6 B 78–81 / JP 1, 9–12 and Pap. X–6 B 82 / JP 6, 6601), some of which Kierkegaard considered publishing under his own name as well. 207 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 178 (and see above). Compare Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 72 / JP 6, 6598, p. 299 and the draft of an answer by Johannes de silentio in Pap. X–6 B 70, p. 79. 202 203

82

Gerhard Schreiber

furthermore answers the question (in the affirmative) that Theophilus Nicolaus has posed in his own book’s title. yet Climacus cannot appeal to theophilus nicolaus’ argumentation any further, because of the curious turn that it takes, namely, rejecting Christianity along with “the paradox” with which it is inextricably intertwined: “you admit that the Christian is in fact the paradox; and then you reject all of Christianity and declare triumphantly, ‘this is Christianity—now where is the paradox?’ it would be better to say: ‘now where is Christianity?’ ”208 in this manner we arrive at the “amazing situation,” wherein Climacus, who does not identify himself as a Christian, lets Christianity stand, whereas theophilus nicolaus dares to “throw out all of Christianity—and then continue to be Christian and, furthermore, in the capacity of a Christian make no petty distinctions between (see title page) ‘Jews, Christians, and mohammedans.’ ”209 in reply to theophilus nicolaus’ allegation that abraham’s faith cannot possibly have been “by virtue of the absurd,” Climacus avers that “the absurd” was indeed present in relation to abraham’s faith as well, even if the content of this faith could not of course have been identical to the content of Christian faith: “abraham is called the father of faith because he has the formal qualifications of faith, believing against the understanding,210 although it has never occurred to the Christian Church that abraham’s faith had the content of Christian faith which relates essentially to a later historical event.”211 For this reason, there is no contradiction between the account of Johannes de silentio and that of Johannes Climacus. in Fear and Trembling, moreover, Johannes de silentio busied himself “lyrically-dialectically” with the figure of Abraham; while in the Postscript, Johannes Climacus is “existentially” concerned with the problem “of becoming a Christian.”212 what is more, neither Johannes de silentio nor Johannes Climacus claims to have faith. in this context, it is strange indeed that theophilus nicolaus—“a declared rationalist,” who hopes to do away with “the absurd, the paradox” entirely— explicitly assumes the existence of “direct communications from god, higher Pap. X–6 B 72, p. 81. and see the sentences immediately preceding: “you wish to help Christianity inasmuch as you cast all dogmas overboard, abolish Christianity—and insert the faith of the old testament; and this faith is supposed to be Christianity.” see also Pap. X– 6 B 68, p. 72 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300. Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 75 / JP 6, 6598, p. 302: “you did superbly well; both the paradox and Christianity, jointly and separately, vanished completely.” 209 Pap. X–6 B 68, pp. 72–3 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300; and see the subtitle of Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?: “for the mutual edification of Jews, Christians, and mohammedans.” 210 in the draft Pap. X–6 B 72, p. 82, Kierkegaard offers an interesting gloss on the fragment “believing against the understanding,” which he later deleted: it is “sharpened,

because it appears as if there were a self-contradiction in god or in his will in regard to abraham, insofar as at one moment he promises to preserve isaac’s life, but at another he demands that Abraham himself sacrifice Isaac.” 211 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 73 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300. Compare eiríksson, Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? pp. 45–6; p. 140; p. 143. 212 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 73 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300; and compare SKS 4, 128 / FT, 33. SKS 7, 560 / CUP1, 617. 208

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

83

intimations, visions, revelations.”213 if theophilus nicolaus wishes to claim that the faith that Johannes de silentio and Johannes Climacus describe as “the absurd, the paradox” is by no means absurd, but is instead “the higher rationality,”214 albeit not in a speculative sense—then theophilus nicolaus ought to tread carefully: “if the absurd is not the negative sign and predicate which dialectically makes sure that the scope of ‘the purely human’ is qualitatively terminated, then you actually have no sign of your higher reason.”215 By excluding “the absurd,” theophilus nicolaus runs the risk that his “higher reason” will turn out not to be beyond the human sphere, in the region of revelation and the divine, but within the human sphere, and indeed “somewhat further down, in the underground territory of misunderstanding.”216 For believers themselves, however, neither their faith nor the object of their faith appears absurd—not, at least, as long as they continue to have faith. the believing one speaks as follows: when i believe, then assuredly neither faith nor the content of faith is absurd. o, no, no—but i understand very well that for the person who does not believe, faith and the content of faith are absurd, and i also understand that as soon as i myself am not in the faith, am weak, when doubt perhaps begins to stir, then faith and the content of faith gradually begin to become absurd for me. But this may have been the divine will: in order that faith—whether a man will have faith or not—could be the test, the examination, faith was bound up with the absurd, and the absurd formed and composed in such a way that only one force can prevail over it—the passion of faith—its humility sharpened by the pain of sin-consciousness.217

as for theophilus nicolaus’ suggestion, at the close of his book, that Climacus rethink the matter of “the paradox” one more time: Climacus considers this suggestion irrelevant to him. But if theophilus nicolaus, at some future time, should seek to return to the theme of Christianity, it would be advisable for him first of all “to take up” Christianity itself, “which, probably without even noticing, you lost in your zeal to prove that there is no paradox in Christianity.”218 in the “postscript” to his article, Climacus concludes by revisiting Johannes de silentio’s parable of the “knight of faith” and “the princess.” in Climacus’ view, theophilus nicolaus has not only developed a somewhat unhealthy obsession with this parable, but has managed to misunderstand it completely: “to you the ‘knight of faith’ is preoccupied with understanding that it is not impossible to get the princess, Pap. X–6 B 68, pp. 73–74 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300. Climacus continues: “understand me correctly—what surprises me is that the writer is a rationalist who wants to get rid of the supernatural in this—well, certainly not rationalistic—way” (p. 74 / p. 301). Compare [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”?, pp. 140–3. 214 Compare [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 25; p. 85; see also Tro, Overtro og Vantro, p. 47. 215 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 74 / JP 6, 6598, p. 301. 216 ibid. 217 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 75 / JP 6, 6598, pp. 301–2. 218 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 75 / JP 6, 6598, p. 302. For theophilus nicolaus’ suggestion to Climacus, see Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 180; for Johannes de silentio’s response to this suggestion, see Pap. X–6 B 70, p. 79. Pap. X–6 B 71. 213

84

Gerhard Schreiber

yes, that for many reasons it is ‘possible.’ ”219 Johannes de silentio, however, begins with the assumption “that, humanly speaking, it is impossible for the lover to get the princess.”220 this assumption cannot be altered, since it is only on the basis of it that “the difference between resignation and faith can be elucidated.”221 in fragments of a reply by anti-Climacus—a reply by a pseudonym, that is, who openly claims to have faith222—Kierkegaard occupies himself principally with the notion of “the absurd” itself. Here too, as in the reply by Climacus, anti-Climacus dismisses as a “misunderstanding” theophilus nicolaus’ charge of “contradiction” between the conceptions of “the absurd” in Fear and Trembling and in the Postscript. According to Anti-Climacus, Abraham’s faith represents only “the formal definition of faith.”223 the content of his faith could not of course refer to Jesus Christ. in another entry, meanwhile, Kierkegaard articulates a distinction between “the absurd” in Fear and Trembling and “the paradox” in the Postscript: in Fear and Trembling “the purely personal definition of existential faith” is presented, while in the Postscript we find “faith in relation to a doctrine.”224 once again, the function of “the absurd” is explained as that of a boundary marker,225 which indicates where the sphere of faith is negatively cut off from the operations of human understanding.226 “the absurd is the negative criterion of that which is higher than human understanding and knowledge.” this is not to say that Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 76 / JP 6, 6598, p. 303. Because theophilus nicolaus has treated the parable of the “knight of faith” and “the princess” as though this were the “chief substance” of Fear and Trembling, he has taken no notice of the “heart of the matter” of the book and its genuine Problemata. “the story of the princess” is in fact only “a minor illustration, an approximation, used by Johannes de silentio merely to illuminate abraham, not to explain abraham directly, for after all he cannot understand abraham” (p. 76 / p. 302). 220 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 76 / JP 6, 6598, p. 303. 221 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 77 / JP 6, 6598, p. 304. Because this elucidation depends entirely on the assumption that a relation between the “knight of faith” and “the princess” is impossible, Climacus could have just as easily employed “a commoner, a maidservant” (p. 77 / p. 304) for this purpose. 222 see SKS 22, 127–8, nB11:204 / JP 6, 6431. SKS 22, 130, nB11:209 / JP 6, 6433. SV1 Xiii, p. 494, note / PV, 6, note. 223 Pap. X–6 B 81 / JP 1, 12. 224 Pap. X–6 B 80, p. 86 / JP 1, 11. see p. 87: “it is one thing to believe by virtue of the absurd (only the form of the passion of faith [blot Troes Lidenskabens Formelle; the Hongs have “the formula only of the passion of faith”]) and to believe the absurd. The first expression is used by Johannes de silentio, and the second by Johannes Climacus.” 225 see SKS 23, 24, nB15:25 / JP 1, 7: “the concept of the absurd is precisely to grasp the fact that it cannot and must be grasped. this is a negatively determined concept but is just as dialectical as any positive one....generally it is a basic error to think that there are no negative concepts; the highest principles of all thought or the proofs of them are certainly negative. Human reason has [a] boundary [Grændse; though this is a singular noun, the Hongs write “boundaries”]; that is where the negative concepts are to be found. the boundary dispute [Grændsefægtningen] is negative, constraining.” 226 see Pap. X–6 B 79, p. 85 / JP 1, 10: “the absurd terminates negatively before the sphere of faith, which is a sphere by itself”; or Pap. X–6 B 78 / JP 1, 9: Faith represents “the new immediacy, and precisely this is assured by the negative sign.” 219

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

85

the operations of human understanding are of no significance at all. Rather, “the operations of understanding are to note it as such—and then to submit it to everyone for his belief.”227 For instance, if i believe that for god everything is possible, then “the absurd” represents “the negative determinant which assures, for example, that i have not overlooked one or another possibility which still lies within the human arena. the absurd is the expression of despair: that humanly it is not possible—but despair is the negative sign of faith.”228 “the absurd” is thus inextricably intertwined with faith, for it is its boundary marker;229 and so it should under no circumstances be confused with “the absurd in the ordinary sense.”230 theophilus nicolaus is heedless of this fact, however, since he simply wants to do away with “the absurd.” He lacks “the dialectical elasticity to assure his faith’s passion a negative expression just as high as his supposed faith.” As a result, he is left with “a much lower definition of faith.”231 as in the reply by Climacus, anti-Climacus here ascribes decisive importance to the perspective from which “the absurd” is perceived. thus anti-Climacus speaks of a transformation of the absurd that takes place in faith: “when the believer has faith, the absurd is not the absurd—faith transforms it, but in every weak moment it is again more or less absurd to him. the passion of faith is the only thing that masters the absurd—if not, then faith is not faith in the strictest sense, but a kind of knowledge.”232 it is only those who lack the passion of faith, to those who are outside of faith, that the believer appears to have faith “by virtue of the absurd.”233 And so it is fitting that the two pseudonyms Johannes de silentio and Johannes Climacus, both of whom Pap. X–6 B 80, p. 87 / JP 1, 11. Pap. X–6 B 78, p. 84 / JP 1, 9. 229 see, for example, Pap. X–6 B 79, p. 86 / JP 1, 10: “the absurd and faith are inseparables, which is necessary if there is to be friendship and if this friendship is to be maintained between two qualities so unlike as god and man....and true faith breathes healthfully and blessedly in the absurd.” 230 Pap. X–6 B 68, p. 73 / JP 6, 6598, p. 300. see also SKS 7, 516 / CUP1, 567–8 and SKS 23, 23, nB15:25 / JP 1, 7: “not every absurdity is the absurd or the paradox.” on the difference for Kierkegaard between “the absurd” / “the (absolute) paradox,” on the one hand, and “nonsense” on the other hand, see, for example, n.H. søe, “Kierkegaard’s doctrine of the paradox,” in A Kierkegaard Critique: An International Selection of Essays Interpreting Kierkegaard, ed. by Howard a. Johnson and niels thulstrup, new york: Harper & Brothers 1962, pp. 207–7, particularly pp. 219–20. 231 Pap. X–6 B 79, p. 86 / JP 1, 10. 232 ibid. 233 see Pap. X–6 B 79, p. 86 / JP 1, 10: “to a third person the believer relates himself by virtue of the absurd; so must a third person judge, for the third person does not have the passion of faith.” this applies equally to the “higher hints” to which theophilus nicolaus refers: “a ‘higher hint,’ etc., can very well be nothing less than the absurd for the believer— but for a third person!” yet even this is of no help in regard to abraham, “because for him the collision is precisely between two higher hints—god’s promise about isaac and god’s demand that he sacrifice Isaac; nothing is said about a third ‘higher hint.’ ” (Pap. X–6 B 80, p. 86 / JP 1, 11). see also the portrait of the “spontaneous believer” in SKS 23, 176–7, nB17:19 / JP 1, 8: the “spontaneous believer” lacks “the tension of the dialectical,” and so cannot sustain 227 228

86

Gerhard Schreiber

claim not to have faith, should illuminate Christian faith negatively in this manner.234 theophilus nicolaus, however, has missed this point. in journal entry nB17:28 (“about theophilus nicolaus”), Kierkegaard makes this point explicit: Johannes Climacus himself declares that he does not have faith. theophilus nicolaus portrays the believer. He does not perceive at all that to be consistent he has to assume that everything Johannes Climacus says proves nothing, since he himself says he does not have faith, is not a Christian. But theophilus nicolaus has no inkling of this...How tragic to live in such a limited setting that there is virtually no one who has an eye for a profoundly executed artistic design...I am identified automatically with my pseudonyms, and some nonsense is concocted which—of course—many more understand—yes, of course!235

Kierkegaard sought to illuminate this perspectival difference between the believer, on the one hand, and the thinker outside faith, on the other, in the very structure of his reply to theophilus nicolaus—by choosing the pseudonym anti-Climacus to respond from a believer’s point of view to theophilus nicolaus’ critique of “the principle of absurdity.” this can be seen, among other places, in an addition to journal entry Pap. X–6 B 82, where Kierkegaard writes: “incidentally, i would be glad to have another pseudonym, one who does not like Johannes de silentio say he does not have faith, but plainly, positively says he has faith—anti-Climacus—repeat what, as a matter of fact, is stated in the pseudonymous writings.”236 III. Kierkegaard’s Relation to and Behavior toward Eiríksson: An Attempt at an Interpretation in the previous section, we took note of Kierkegaard’s deep discomfort with eiríksson’s “unauthorized” praise; his annoyance with eiríksson’s interpretation of his writings as a critique of martensen; and his resultant refusal to ally himself with Eiríksson in any way, even by providing (financial) support for the latter’s opposition to martensen. i will now argue that the underlying reason for these reactions of Kierkegaard’s to eiríksson lies in the character of Kierkegaard’s own confrontation

“this double vision,” i.e., “that the content of faith, seen from the other side, is the absurd [mistranslated by the Hongs in JP 1, 8: “is the negative absurd”].” 234 Pap. X–6 B 79, p. 85 / JP 1, 10: “Johannes de silentio...has explained that he is not a believer—in order to illuminate faith negatively.” 235 SKS 23, 182–3, nB17:28 / JP 6, 6597; and see Pap. X–6 B 82, p. 88 / JP 6, 6601. in Pap. X–6 B 118, pp. 152–3 / CUP2, 159 and Pap. X–6 B 127, p. 169, rasmus nielsen is similarly accused of having uncritically identified Kierkegaard with his pseudonyms. 236 Pap. X–6 B 82, p. 88 / JP 6, 6601. see a note to Pap. X–6 B 82, p. 87 / JP 6, 6601: “if there is to be any explanation, perhaps it is right to use a pseudonym: anti-Climacus”; or Kierkegaard’s note on the envelope containing the fragments attributed to anti-Climacus: “if there is to be a reply, it might be a few words by me, and then the remainder a little information by anti-Climacus, but personally i must give no information” (Pap. X–6 B 77 / JP 6, 6600).

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

87

with martensen. more precisely, it lies in the method by which Kierkegaard sought to and did conduct his dispute with martensen. in his drafts of a public reply to eiríksson, Kierkegaard insists that his polemic in the Postscript was not (also) directed at Martensen. This claim fits the facts, however, only in so far as Martensen is not identified directly or by name within the Postscript as the object of its critique. yet it is just as true of the Postscript as it is typical of the rest of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writings that, in the words of Jon stewart, “Kierkegaard intentionally avoided mentioning actual names in his text and instead engaged in indirect or veiled criticism.”237 in his groundbreaking study Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered (2003), stewart contends “that the Postscript is intended in large part as a hidden polemic against martensen.”238 stewart supports this claim by listing numerous allusions and “encoded expressions” that Kierkegaard employs in his critique of martensen’s theology in the Postscript.239 Not only is Martensen’s name mentioned in Kierkegaard’s later reflections on the Postscript,240 it also appears in Kierkegaard’s working draft of the book—indeed, even in its fair copy—where martensen is explicitly mentioned, together with Johan ludvig Heiberg, as the target of a critique that Kierkegaard ultimately revised by replacing the names “Heiberg and martensen” with the more anonymous term “the Hegelians.”241 in The Moment (1855), Kierkegaard offers a retrospective glimpse at the motivations for this indirect critique. He cites his consideration for both his deceased father and Bishop Jakob peter mynster: Bishop martensen and i are not, as they say, entirely unacquainted with each other. For many years there has been, literarily, an unsettled account between us. But as long as the old bishop...was living (also out of devotion to my late father), i took care from my side that it could go on quietly...i refused to attack him by name—and Bishop martensen maintained silence.242

Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, p. 454. 238 ibid. 239 ibid., pp. 451–66; arild Christensen, “efterskriftens opgør med martensen,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 4, 1962, pp. 45–62. 240 Pap. X–6 B 116 / CUP2, 156–7. 241 SKS 7, 227.29 / CUP1, 305, together with the versions of this passage in the draft (Pap. vi B 54:4 / CUP2, 72) and fair copy (Pap. vi B 98:58 / CUP2, 72) of the Postscript. moreover, martensen is mentioned, together with his book Den christelige Daab (1843) in a note to the passage SKS 7, 49 (line 30) / CUP1, 44—as well as in the draft (Pap. vi B 24.1 / CUP2, 30) and fair copy (Pap. vi B 98.15, p. 179 / CUP2, 29–30). 242 SV1, vol. Xiv, 96 / M, 81. see Pap. X–6 B 137, p. 187 / JP 6, 6636, p. 327: “the pseudonyms always made only an indirect attack.” Compare SKS 23, 189, nB18:58, where Kierkegaard—reacting to the preface to martensen’s second edition of Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850, pp. iv–v—feels tempted to issue a direct critique of martensen: “indeed, it became my duty to take away the restraints of jest and the diversions of indirection, which i had employed until that point in relation to my communication, sparing myself and others; to remove these things and to proceed directly.” see also SKS 23, 266–7, nB18:26 and SKS 23, 170, nB18:30. 237

88

Gerhard Schreiber

In order to conceal his critique of Martensen, Kierkegaard modified “the scene” of the Postscript appropriately. Among other things, he introduced the figure of the “assistant professor” or “Privatdocent,” which did not exist in denmark, as the object of his polemic. in an 1851 journal entry, Kierkegaard explains: For my part i let the pseudonyms express the disagreement, but so softened and blurred that the scene could just as well be in germany, where at that time the privat-docent was a stock character, whereas we did not have a single one. martensen was never named: the whole context was poetically maintained, which both poetically satisfied me and gave me joy, for i knew what a great friend of peace he is, the old one among us, zealand’s venerable Bishop [mynster].243

Concerning the “effectiveness” of this concealment, it should be noted that eiríksson was by no means the only contemporary of Kierkegaard and martensen who publicly identified Martensen as the true target of the Postscript (and of other writings).244 indeed, martensen himself was entirely aware of Kierkegaard’s critique and its indirectness, as he let it be known in hindsight in his autobiography From My Life (1882): [Kierkegaard] sought to annihilate and extinguish every bit of activity that emanated from me. He did not attack me directly at all. His writings of course contained all sorts of polemical and satirical attacks on speculation, a portion of which were directed at me. But he never attacked me in straightforward and open battle.245

against the backdrop of Kierkegaard’s dispute with martensen, and above all given the method by which Kierkegaard sought to conduct this dispute, it is now wholly understandable why Kierkegaard responded with nothing but deep revulsion after Eiríksson not only publicly identified Martensen as the direct target of Kierkegaard’s critique in the Postscript, but also co-opted Kierkegaard’s writings for his own wholly open campaign against martensen. there was also Kierkegaard’s vanity, which could not tolerate any close allies in his dispute with his Copenhagen contemporaries; and last but not least there was the rumor circulating in Copenhagen (at least during the summer of 1847) to the effect that Kierkegaard had been supporting eiríksson financially, and which decisively ruled out any chance that Kierkegaard might provide such support. nevertheless, for the remainder of his life, Kierkegaard refrained from publishing any protest against eiríksson—thanks to his ethicallyreligiously motivated “pride,” as he wrote in his journal. Pap. X–6 B 171, p. 262 / JP 6, 6748, p. 396. see nielsen, Mag. S. Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik,” (along with Kierkegaard’s draft of a reply to the same in Pap. X–6 B 83–102.108 / JP, 6, 6601, 6403–6, 6663); peter michael stilling, Om den indbildte Forsoning af Tro og Viden med særligt Hensyn til Prof. Martensens Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1859 (ASKB 802); and Hans Friedrik Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” in Dansk Kirketidende, no. 52 (december 12), 1855, columns 841–52; column 842: “later, as is wellknown, Kierkegaard’s objections to Hegel became an ever-sharper attack on martensen.” 245 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, pp. 140–1, cited in Encounters with Kierkegaard, ed. and trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 1996, pp. 196–7. 243 244

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

89

apart from Kierkegaard’s own dispute with martensen, which i consider the main cause of his dismissive attitude toward eiríksson, there is also a second major cause whose importance should not be underestimated. at many places in his journals and papers, Kierkegaard laments that other authors have “plundered”246 his works, hoping to use his ideas for their own advantage. this complaint is often expressed in abstract terms only; but even if eiríksson is not explicitly named, it is reasonable to assume that Kierkegaard included him among these “other authors.”247 the issue is not just that Kierkegaard felt abused when such authors ignored the dialectical and pseudonymous character of his writings. it is also that he held that any attempt to articulate his ideas directly, or to turn them into a “doctrine,” would be fundamentally inconsistent with his own specific communicative method, “indirect communication”248: “what i have to say may not be taught; by being taught it turns into something entirely different.” Kierkegaard needed no human being to teach his ideas. instead, he sought a person “with the willingness in every danger to will to express in action precisely what he teaches.”249 it was their shared opposition to martensen and his speculative theology—despite the great difference in the methods by which each acted upon this opposition— that led eiríksson to feel a bond with Kierkegaard. and it was precisely this point of agreement that eiríksson invoked when he wrote to Kierkegaard in search of financial support: “I have often mused on what the reasons might be why you have (earlier) been unwilling to support me. For you have surely realized that i am one of the few who is striving in the same direction, or in a similar direction, as you yourself.”250 in my view, however, it would be unfair both to eiríksson as a distinctive thinker and to the distinctive development of his thoughts and aims if we were to take the above point of agreement, namely, their shared opposition to martensen, as grounds SKS 21, 329, nB10:144. see also SKS 20, 315, nB4:60. SKS 20, 321–3, nB4:72 / JP 1, 646. SKS 21, 92, nB7:31 / JP 6, 6254. SKS 22, 9, nB11:5. SKS 21, 392, nB14:81 / JP 6, 6550. 247 Kierkegaard often speaks vaguely of “[the] others” as the targets of this accusation. occasionally, however, he did name names: adolph peter adler (see Pap. viii–2 B 7,10); rasmus nielsen (see SKS 21, 261–2, nB10:13. SKS 22, 32, nB11:46 / JP 6, 6402. Pap. X–6 B 83–9, pp. 91–100 (Pap. X–6 B 83–6 / JP 6, 6403–6) and Pap. X–6 B 96, pp. 105–6); peder ludvig møller (see Kierkegaard’s article “en omreisende Æsthetikers virksomhed, og hvorledes han dog kom til at betale gjæstebudet,” Fædrelandet, no. 2078 (december 27), 1845); grímur thorgrímsson thomsen (see SKS 18, 273, JJ:400 / KJN 2, 252); peter vilhelm Christensen (SKS 18, 186, JJ:144 / KJN 2, 173); and Kierkegaard’s brother peter Christian Kierkegaard (see SKS 21, 317, nB4:62 / JP 6, 6106 and SKS 21, 392, nB14:81 / JP 6, 6550). 248 see, for example, SKS 20, 61, nB6:80 / JP 1, 662. SKS 21, 83, nB7:13 / JP 6, 6248. SKS 22, 361–2, nB14:30 / JP 6, 6532; and above all Pap. viii–2 B, 79–89, pp. 143–90 / JP 1, 648–57, pp. 267–308. 249 SKS 20, 321–2, nB4:72 / JP 1, 646, p. 265 (emphasis mine). throughout his life, Kierkegaard sought to stop his ideas from being turned into doctrines. “moreover, if i keep the enterprise pure as long as i live, i give the tension which may possibly effect the awakening of someone or other” (p. 322 / p. 265). 250 B&A, vol. 1, p. 182 / LD, letter 163, p. 229. 246

90

Gerhard Schreiber

for attributing to eiríksson a deep-rooted and substantive link to Kierkegaard’s philosophical-theological outlook.251 this is not to say that eiríksson does not praise Kierkegaard on certain matters of substance. it is to emphasize, however, that as early as in Faith, Superstition, and Unbelief (1846), eiríksson understood himself as in fundamental disagreement with Kierkegaard.252 this disagreement concerned a matter central to the lives and writings of both thinkers: namely, how Christian faith is to be understood. it is true that eiríksson explicitly praised Kierkegaard’s stress on the individual and unexternalizable features of faith;253 and it is also true that eiríksson, like Kierkegaard, decisively opposed the Hegelian identification of faith and knowledge.254 yet eiríksson denied that true religious and Christian faith can stand in opposition to reason. instead, faith must be a “rational faith,” in which “reason”—as eiríksson understands it—serves as the medium through which faith receives its objects. the criterion by which an object may be confirmed as an object of true faith is that the relevant object must address the “rational sense” according to its essence. this insistence on the full “rationality” of faith delimits the “boundary”255 between faith and superstition; and this boundary is crossed, eiríksson holds, when Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and Concluding Unscientific Postscript make “the absurd” (via the term “by virtue of the absurd”) into the sole ground and principle of faith. eiríksson’s book Is Faith a Paradox and “By Virtue of the Absurd”? provides a thorough critique of the application of the “principle of absurdity” to the faith of abraham and that of the “knight of faith.” it also offers, by way of an alternative interpretation of these two figures, a demonstration that and how their faith is “by virtue of the higher or the highest understanding”256 or rather “by virtue of the higher rationality,”257 and is increased and strengthened further by means of a divine “hint” or “promise.” moreover, theophilus nicolaus contends that he has uncovered a fundamental contradiction between the accounts of faith in Fear and Trembling and see, for example, Materialien zur Philosophie Søren Kierkegaards, ed. by michael theunissen and wilfred greve, Frankfurt: suhrkamp 1979, p. 147 (“on the decisive religious questions, however, theophilus nicolaus takes Kierkegaard’s side”); or the claim in SKS K21, 286 (commentary to SKS 21, 302.4, nB10:87) that eiríksson “published many books inspired by sK,” which is supported by appeal to the passage in eiríksson’s letter to Kierkegaard that has just been cited. 252 in Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, p. IV, Eiríksson even identifies himself as in agreement with martensen in principle—as against Kierkegaard’s (and nielsen’s) conception of faith; and in Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? pp. 2–3, eiríksson criticizes nielsen for having made no protest against Kierkegaard’s account of faith in Fear and Trembling. 253 eiríksson, Tro, Overtro, og Vantro, pp. 106–9, note. 254 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? pp. 18–19, note. see also Dr. Martensens trykte moralske Paragrapher, pp. 153–4, where eiríksson writes that martensen and speculative theology generally have abolished Christian faith, “so that a doctrine is no longer a doctrine of faith, but a doctrine of knowledge.” 255 eiríksson, Tro, Overtro, og Vantro, p. 24; p. 58; p. 93. 256 [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? p. 25. 257 ibid., p. 85. 251

Eiríksson: An Opponent of Martensen and an Unwelcome Ally of Kierkegaard

91

in the Postscript, in so far as Climacus identifies “the absurd,” in virtue of which both abraham and the “knight of faith” have faith, with “the paradox”: the historical event of god’s incarnation in Jesus Christ. in his drafts of a public reply to eiríksson’s critique, Kierkegaard emphasizes that “the absurd” represents a “negative determinant,” a boundary marker of reason, which guards against confusion of the “sphere of faith” with the realm of knowledge and understanding. eiríksson, Kierkegaard argues, has failed to understand that “the absurd” functions as just such a negative boundary marker, inextricably linked to faith. Worse still, Eiríksson has neglected to attend to the specific perspectives that inform the utterances of the two pseudonyms Johannes de silentio and Johannes Climacus. namely, the pseudonyms seek to inform faith from the standpoint of nonfaith, that is, negatively—with the aid of “the absurd.” the believer, by contrast, has a different point of view: for him, “the absurd” does not appear absurd at all, since it is “transformed” by means of the passion of faith. as far as this claim is concerned, it should be noted, Kierkegaard and eiríksson do indeed enjoy a certain commonality of views. For eiríksson too holds that “the absurd” and “the paradox” make their appearance merely from and within “the limited point of view of the understanding”; they do not appear as such from the vantage-point of “the higher spiritual laws,” that is, “the religious standpoint.”258 in Kierkegaard’s drafted replies to eiríksson’s critique, we encounter several important and noteworthy statements: not only about the meaning of “the absurd” and “the paradox,” but also about the perspectival and relative qualities of the utterances of Johannes de silentio and Johannes Climacus, in so far as both pseudonyms remain outside faith. Kierkegaard’s dispute with eiríksson may therefore be understood as an index of the development of his understanding of faith (and particularly the role of “the absurd” and “the paradox”) that is attested in his journals by early 1850. this is not to say that eiríksson’s critique was the sole cause of this development,259 but that it served at the very least as a catalyst for it, by encouraging Kierkegaard (at least) to specify his earlier utterances. unfortunately, much as he had earlier declined to publish a response to eiríksson’s “unauthorized acknowledgment” of his writings as a critique of martensen, Kierkegaard also decided not to publish his reply to eiríksson’s pseudonymous critique of his understanding of faith. Kierkegaard thereby lost an opportunity for productive dialogue. For in his fragmentary attempted responses to theophilus nicolaus’ charge of contradiction between Fear and Trembling and the Postscript (namely, that ibid., pp. 24–5; cf. p. 49. see also Pap. X–6 B 80, p. 86 / JP 1, 11, where Kierkegaard writes: “the author [magnús eiríksson] would like to get rid of the absurd—he assumes that faith is by virtue of a higher hint, a higher communication, etc. look more closely. Johannes de silentio does not say that he is a believer, but a ‘higher hint,’ etc., can very well be nothing less than the absurd for the believer—but for a third person!” 259 see especially the entries SKS 23, 23, nB15:25 / JP 1, 7. SKS 23, 136–8, nB16:60 / JP 3, 2803. SKS 23, 148–9, nB16:78.a / JP 4, 4782, all of which were written before the appearance of Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? on march 11, 1850; and see also Kierkegaard’s critique of rasmus nielsen’s Mag. Søren Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik,” in Pap. X–6 B 83–102.108 / JP 6, 6601, 6403–6, 6663. 258

92

Gerhard Schreiber

Climacus identifies “the absurd,” the ground of Abraham’s faith, with “the paradox” of the incarnation), Kierkegaard seems not to have arrived at a truly satisfying reply to this critique. Furthermore, at one point in God and the Reformer (1866), after he once more criticizes Kierkegaard’s “dialectical tumbling with concepts,” his conceptual exaggerations at the expense of the truth, eiríksson adds the following note: “the late dr. S. Kierkegaard once admitted as much to me in a private conversation, after i had expressed my opposition to his conception of faith as “by virtue of the absurd,” that he had indeed pushed the point to extremes.”260 The final mention of Eiríksson in Kierkegaard’s journals and papers is a reference to the book On Baptists and Infant Baptism in late december 1850.261 in sharp contrast to Kierkegaard’s writings, the extensive works (amounting to over 4,200 pages) of the icelandic theologian and religious author magnús eiríksson—a critical contemporary and unwelcome ally of Kierkegaard in their shared opposition to danish Hegelianism, above all to martensen’s speculative theology—would soon be forgotten after his death. “Magnús Eiríksson stands as an isolated figure in his day; his fate was to be unheard and then quickly forgotten.”262 Translated by David D. Possen and Merle Denker Possen

260 261 262

eiríksson, Gud og Reformatoren, p. 102, note. SKS 24, 137, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6709. Koch, Den danske idealisme. 1800–1880, p. 298.

Bibliography I. Magnus Eiríksson’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, belyste ved Hjelp af Dr. Martensens Skrifter, samt Modskrifterne, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søns Forlag 1850 (ASKB 476). [theophilus nicolaus], Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? Et Spørgsmaal foranlediget ved “Frygt og Bæven, af Johannes de silentio,” besvaret ved Hjelp af en Troes-Ridders fortrolige Meddelelser, til fælles Opbyggelse for Jøder, Christne og Muhamedanere, af bemeldte Troes-Ridders Broder, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søn 1850 (ASKB 831). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Eiríksson anonymous, Epistola eller Sende-Brev til Sr. Magnus Eiriksson fra en anden gammel Landsbypræst. Til Publici videre Nytte og Fornøielse nu til Trykken befordret, Copenhagen: H.g. Klein 1844 (ASKB u 36). —— [review of] “Er Troen et Paradox og “i Kraft af det Absurde”? (1850),” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 5, no. 233, 1850, columns 423–4 (ASKB 321–325). Brandt, C.J., [review of] “Tro, Overtro og Vantro, i deres Forhold til Fornuft og Forstand samt til hinanden indbyrdes,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 53, 1846, columns 14–16. Helveg, ludvig nicolaus, “prof. martensens dogmatik og dens angribere. (slutning),” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 230, 1850, columns 369–73. martensen, Hans lassen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850, p. 4 (ASKB 654). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Eiríksson anonymous [erik Bøgh], Søren Kierkegaard og St. Erik og St. Magnus Dyrkelsen. Et Bidrag til Bedømmelsen af S. Kierkegaards Virksomhed item Erik Bøghs og Magnus Eiriksons Productivitet, Copenhagen: Cohens Bogtrykkeri 1870. Cauly, olivier, “la foi est-elle un paradoxe ou ‘une vertu de l’absurde’? À propos d’une critique de magnus eriksson (theophilus nicolaus),” Kairos, vol. 10 (Kierkegaard, Actes du Colloque Franco-Danois, ‘Retour de Kierkegaard/ Retour a Kierkegaard?,’ université de toulouse-le mirail, 15–16 novembre, 1995), toulouse 1997, pp. 99–114.

94

Gerhard Schreiber

eiriksson, magnus, Om Bønnens Virkning og dens Forhold til Guds Uforanderlighed. Nogle Oplysninger og Bemærkninger nærmest byggede paa aandelig Erfaring og et umiddelbart Gudsforhold, Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag 1870. —— Gud og Reformatoren. En religiøs Idee. Samt nogle Bemærkninger om de kirkelige Tilstande, Dr. S. Kierkegaard og Forfatteren, Copenhagen: J.H, schubothes Boghandels Forlag 1866. Fabro, Cornelio, “Faith and reason in Kierkegaard’s dialectic,” in A Kierkegaard Critique: An International Selection of Essays Interpreting Kierkegaard, ed. by Howard a. Johnson and niels thulstrup, new york: Harper & Brothers 1962, pp. 156–206, particularly pp. 179–84. garff, Joakim, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 2005, pp. 425–7; p. 534; p. 638; p. 646. Kabell, aage, Kierkegaardstudiet i Norden, Copenhagen: Hagerup 1948, pp. 81–2; p. 125; p. 179; p. 214. Materialien zur Philosophie Søren Kierkegaards, ed. by michael theunissen and wilfried greve, Frankfurt: suhrkamp 1979, pp. 147–67; pp. 171–4. nielsen, svend aage, Kierkegaard og Regensen. Kierkegaards forhold til F.C. Petersen, Poul Martin Møller, D.G. Monrad, Magnus Eiriksson, Carl Ploug, P.L. Møller, Hans Brøchner og J.C. Hostrup, Copenhagen: graabrødre torv’s Forlag 1965, pp. 70–5; p. 144. possen, david d., “on Kierkegaard’s Copenhagen pagans,” in Christian Discourses and The Crisis and A Crisis in the Life of an Actress, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 2008 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 17), pp. 35–59. rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel nordisk Forlag 1950, pp. 23–4. schreiber, gerhard, “eiríksson, magnús,” Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 28, 2007, columns 517–38. skjoldager, emanuel, “an unwanted ally: magnus eiriksson,” in Kierkegaaard as a Person, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 12), pp. 102–8. thomas, John Heywood, “Christianity as absurd,” in The Sources and Depths of Faith in Kierkegaard, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1978 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 2), pp. 58–62. Þráinsdóttir, Jóhanna, “er trúin þverstæða? gagnrýni magnúsar eiríkssonar á trúarskoðunum Kierkegaards í ‘ugg og ótta,’ ” Tímarit Máls og menningar, vol. 61, 2000, pp. 35–45. vodskov, H.s., “magnus eiriksson,” in his Spredte Studier, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1884, pp. 31–40. walsh, sylvia, “echoes of absurdity: the offended Consciousness and the absolute paradox in Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments,” in Philosophical Fragments and Johannes Climacus, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 1994 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 7), pp. 33–46. —— Living Christianly: Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Christian Existence, university park, pennsylvania: pennsylvania state university press 2005, pp. 58–60; p. 173.

nicolai Frederik severin grundtvig: the matchless giant anders Holm

n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872) does not share Kierkegaard’s extensive international fame. But yet—to the astonishment of many foreign Kierkegaard readers who have come to Denmark—he has had a significance in his own home country which goes far beyond that of Kierkegaard. The first and best explanation for this is the manysided nature of the influence which Grundtvig has exercised: he is not only the most celebrated national song writer and hymnist, but he is also one of the most influential thinkers with regard to the church and the educational system. in addition, he left his imprint as a pastor, lecturer, historian and not least as a translator and interpreter of norse mythology. Furthermore, he was also the inspiration behind the special danish folk high school, that is, the folkehøjskole, and a spokesman for the enlightenment of the uneducated. He held a seat in the legislative chamber of parliament and has taken on an importance, which is symbolic but has also truly stamped and continues to stamp virtually every aspect of society in denmark. to take a recent example (from 2006), one need only cast a glance at the cultural struggle which denmark along with many other countries in the west is experiencing as a side-effect of immigration and globalization. the debate about the correct interpretation of grundtvig plays an enormous role in this struggle. this is not due to grundtvig belonging to a certain political wing, or to his significance not meeting critical opposition, but rather to the fact that there is a tacit agreement about his fundamental significance being so great that only by making reference to him does it seem possible to create the authority for oneself to venture an opinion about what should be changed and critically addressed, or what would be good to preserve for the danish society of the future. in short, in a Danish context it is difficult to get around Grundtvig. Grundtvig’s extensive significance is, however, nothing new. Even in his own time grundtvig grew to such a large stature that it was impossible to avoid noticing him. it is here that Kierkegaard comes into the picture. Being the 30-years’ younger child of the city and the vigilant observer and commentator of spiritual life in Copenhagen that he was, Kierkegaard of course also had to pour out his opinion about grundtvig, whom he could see growing in influence and importance throughout his entire life. But this is not all; when Kierkegaard’s own brother, his elder by eight years, the theologian p.C. Kierkegaard, at the beginning of the 1830s entered into a life-long discipleship to grundtvig and attached himself to the grundtvig movement, then Kierkegaard came to see grundtvig up close, and so it was inevitable that he take a position on him. of the authorship’s scattered running commentaries—which

96

Anders Holm

have been noted in the registry at the end of the article—it is clear that Kierkegaard knew the grundtvigian milieu and its main personalities from the inside and that he occasionally met grundtvig personally. But most importantly—what has often been overlooked in a person who occupied so much of Kierkegaard’s thoughts— Grundtvig remained an important figure not only in the city landscape but also in Kierkegaard’s reflections on how to obtain one’s eternal happiness. I. Introduction to N.F.S. Grundtvig A. The Years up until 1825 grundtvig’s juvenilia, written from 1805 to 1810, were, just as at several other periods in his almost 70-year period as a writer, the result of the fact that he, through a spiritual and conscious breakthrough, found a solution to a life-view problem which had plagued his conscience for some time. in 1805 the problem had arisen due to the fact that grundtvig, who had fallen violently but impossibly in love, had found out that the rationalist theology and literature of the enlightenment, which he had affiliated himself with during his time as a university student (1801–03), did not give him the answer to the emotional oscillations which he was experiencing. the original cause for his catching fire had disappeared, and he was in real danger of suffering a nervous breakdown. grundtvig found the way out in german-inspired romantic poetry and philosophy, which had made its entry into denmark at the beginning of the century. with romanticism’s special sense of human emotional life, he experienced that an account and an answer was given for the crisis, and the love that had been the occasion for it. However, what immediately set grundtvig free as a writer was that he, in the new intellectual direction, met a positive evaluation of the love which he had since his childhood nourished for the early norse people and their mythology. in the subsequent years he threw himself with energetic zeal into the sources of norse mythology and wrote a series of works,1 which, in the spirit of the age, attempted to create an order in the unmanageable old source material. at the same time he sought with his own poetic additions to show that mythology had a profound relevance for the present. in these years mythology became for grundtvig an obsessive passion, indeed, in more recent grundtvig research it has straightforwardly been claimed that “the young grundtvig’s interpretation mythology is in fact a self-redeeming religious system, which renders Christianity superfluous as a force for salvation.”2 most important in the present context is the fact that in these years grundtvig began his life-long work with the danish and old norse cultural heritage. this created an important foundation for his later danish-norse cultural program. moreover, the most important works from this period are Om Asalæren (1807), Nordens Mythologi eller Udsigt over Eddalæren for dannede Mænd, der ei selv ere Mythologer (1808) (which is found in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library, ASKB 1948), Lidet om Sangene i Edda (1806) and Optrin af Kæmpelivets Undergang i Nord (1809). 2 sune auken, Sagas spejl. Mytologi, historie og kristendom hos N.F.S. Grundtvig, Copenhagen: gyldendal 2005, p. 46. 1

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

97

in connection with his work on norse mythology and history he established his poetry’s world of symbols and the archaic linguistic tone and style, which made him different from Kierkegaard and made him into a figure whom Kierkegaard could easily parody. although grundtvig’s works from this period are classed among the danish romantic literature, they did not win the attention among his contemporaries that they did for subsequent times. However, all this radically changed with a series of works in the following period of the authorship, which just like the preceding one, began with grundtvig experiencing a crisis of conscience and life-view and a great spiritual breakthrough. the crisis is much discussed in grundtvig research, but it arose presumably because grundtvig, after some years in the mythological intoxication, found out that it was difficult for him to bring things into harmony with his theology and his Christian background. the problem ended after a period of violent sufferings when grundtvig around the new year 1810–11 had a breakdown with the result that when he again appeared in public in the course of 1811, it was as a fanatical preacher and defender of the Bible and the strict lutheran Christianity of his childhood home, which he otherwise had broken with during his time as a student. His new positions were now in diametrical opposition to his earlier ones, and the new ones were no longer in step with the times. with his large publication of the period, Short Conception of the World Chronicle Considered in its Continuity (1812),3 he castigates and subsequently alienates many of his contemporaries. in general, the entire Copenhagen intellectual elite unambiguously rejected his Bible-based view of history and complained about his fanatical preaching style, which resulted in a period in which he became more and more isolated. Completely characteristic for grundtvig—and one of the few points that wins Kierkegaard’s admiration—he does not let himself be scared off by public opinion. as a result of the fact that his loud controversial conservatism in public neither won sympathy nor created a position for him as pastor, he, however, in 1815 made the decision to take a different tack. in the following years he threw himself again into the studies of antiquity, nourishing the hope that the works and poems, which he was now publishing on the history of the north and the world, could indirectly point towards his own form of a biblically anchored Christianity. From these years, one should name his extensive translation work of the later famous norse and anglosaxon classics, snorre, saxo and Beowulf; also worthy of mention is his enigmatic one-man journal Danne-Virke, where one finds a series of treatises and poems, which contain forms of thought that scholars have compared to Kierkegaard.4 Finally there 3 n.F.s. grundtvig, Kort Begreb af Verdens Krønike i Sammenhæng, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1812. 4 For example, Henrik Fibæk Jensen “grundtvigs erkendelsesteori,” Grundtvig-Studier, 1979, 29–54; Kim arne pedersen, “ ‘sjæle og Kroppe i tusindtal...’ om sammenhængen mellem menneskesyn og kirkesyn hos grundtvig, undersøgt med baggrund i Kierkegaards forfatterskab,” in Grundtvig–Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, ed. by Henrik wigh-poulsen, Hans grishauge, niels Jørgen Cappelørn, Joakim garff and Henning nielsen, Copenhagen: Forlaget vartov 2002, pp. 59–89; anders Holm, “the Contemporary grundtvig: an addition to Climacus’ Critique in Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2005, pp. 24–36.

98

Anders Holm

is the Overview of the World Chronicle Especially in the Lutheran Period (1817),5 an expanded and more lightly presented edition of the book from 1812. the latter work is found in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library. although with his translation work grundtvig won a few supporters outside of Copenhagen’s walls, and although he was granted an annual financial support by the King beginning in 1818, with all of these efforts grundtvig was not successful in winning the contemporary age over to his side. the general opinion continued to be against him for the next several years. B. “The Matchless Discovery” this was still without doubt true in 1825, although the situation has sometimes been interpreted differently, when he after yet another crisis reached yet another conscious breakthrough. this time the crisis did not have the same personal point of departure in conscience as the two previous ones. It arose in the wake of Grundtvig finally having received a post as pastor in 1821. although this appointment immediately had an encouraging effect on grundtvig, nonetheless there continued to be a problem: the rationalist conception of Christianity, which he knew from the university, and which he around 1805 had critically addressed, occupied, according to his view, an unreasonably powerful place in the institution, that is, the state Church, in which he had now become a pastor. For grundtvig, the problem did not concern some doubt about to what extent he was right vis-à-vis the rationalists, for he felt certain that he was. it was, on the contrary, a concern for the sake of the laypeople. First, he was shocked that a series of religious revivalists were struck down here and there around the country, which, although he never shared their understanding of Christianity, according to his view were more in agreement with the state Church’s official orthodox Lutheran Christianity than the rationalist theology. Second and more importantly, he also had to ask himself how the laypeople could actually choose between his orthodox biblical faith and the rationalist bible-critical twisting of the Bible’s message. laypeople, of course, could not do this, but as a result of the conflict about the Bible between him and the rationalists, they had to be left with a fundamental uncertainty about what true Christianity was. against this background, he began, as he himself later describes it retrospectively, to see if there were not something in the church which was a far stronger “testimony” to true Christianity than what is found in the Bible. the breakthrough came, he wrote later, in a blessed moment when he realized “that the matchless testimony which i so industriously sought in the entire world of spirit, resonated like a voice from heaven through time and Christianity in the apostles’ Creed at Baptism.”6

n.F.s. grundtvig, Udsigt over Verdens-Krøniken fornemmelig i det Lutherske Tidsrum, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1817. 6 n.F.s. grundtvig, Udvalgte Skrifter, vols. 1–10, ed. by Holger Begtrup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1904–09, vol. 10, p. 353. 5

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

99

this discovery had great importance for all of grundtvig’s later thought. grundtvig (and especially Kierkegaard) called it later: “the matchless discovery.”7 what grundtvig had discovered was that the uniting point between all Christians through the ages—the true Christianity—was not the Bible at all but rather the fact that Christians at baptism freely said yes to enter into the offer of salvation, which the apostles’ Creed as a whole points toward. one must regard this testimony of Christianity in history as a living true connection, which existed before people began to elucidate what Christianity was. what was important for grundtvig was that baptism and the creed belonged together, and that for the individual human being it was a matter of appropriating the creed in order to be able to see oneself as a part of Christianity as a continuous whole. However, this did not mean, as Kierkegaard later implied, that Christianity was a question of being able to interpret the individual words of the Creed, but rather that it was a good expression for what the individual human being could vaguely sense and wish to become a part of by being baptized. For this reason grundtvig likewise did not believe that baptism was a radical conversion, but that the human being with baptism says yes to enter into an experience of tradition, where the threefold god acts, without man at the point of departure being able to gain an overview of what this means. Here we have a theology of growth, where grundtvig conceives life in the baptism pact as a companion to the common human life. this provided the solution to grundtvig’s problem. the result of the view was precisely that scripture, which grundtvig in the previous years had defended tooth and nail against modern Bible research, became secondary in the question of salvation. the Bible, grundtvig realized to his great relief, was not a divine revelation, but a useful historical book for enlightenment, which just like other historical sources could elucidate the true Christian life in the church. it is good to read but it is no longer something that one can ground one’s faith on. this did not mean that he did not conceive the Bible’s accounts as something that actually took place. likewise, it did not mean that the Bible and its language disappeared from his universe. But it meant in one of his own formulations that he once and for all had realized that the human being did not exist for the sake of the Bible, but on the contrary, the Bible existed for the sake of human beings. in public this new view was launched when grundtvig on august 26, 1825 published his second great scandalous work: The Church’s Rejoinder Against Professor Theologiæ Dr. H.N. Clausen.8 in this work, which began with a common book review but in time developed into an entire short book, grundtvig attacked in crass terms what he conceived as the essence of the rationalist religiosity in the young professor H.n. Clausen’s most recent major work, Catholicism’s and

the expression “the matchless discovery” itself is used more often by Kierkegaard than by grundtvig. it was as if tailor-made for Kierkegaard to be ironical about. the matchless discovery became for Kierkegaard the very essence of what grundtvig stood for. 8 n.F.s. grundtvig, Kirkens Gienmæle mod Professor Theologiæ Dr. H. N. Clausen, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825. 7

100

Anders Holm

Protestantism’s Church Constitution, Doctrine and Rituals.9 parallel with this he set forth his new view of the church. the problem with Clausen’s book was, according to grundtvig, primarily the concept of the church, which arose out of his attempt to emphasize the advance of protestantism over Catholicism. while Catholicism is, according to Clausen, an ecclesial authoritative faith, which conceives the church as a handed-down historical-spiritual institution, protestantism’s church is build on the Bible alone (sola scriptura), and shall through free research attempt to find its way to the teachings of Jesus. grundtvig rejects in The Church’s Rejoinder this protestant concept of the church as an extremely problematic and self-made construct. How can one, on the one hand, only want to build the church on the text and, on the other hand, also believe that the text is wholly unclear? in this case the protestant Church is not only an arbitrary assumption, but in practice is at least as authoritative over the common man as the papacy, which it attempts to combat; therefore, in The Church’s Rejoinder grundtvig criticizes Clausen for advocating an exegetical papacy. in other words, grundtvig believes that he has surmounted the problem that the common man is dependent on the scholars’ interpretation of scripture, but it is precisely a consequence of Clausen’s views, he claims. therefore, grundtvig sets forth his own conception of the church as an alternative to that of Clausen. in the central issue grundtvig’s view can be boiled down to the claim that while Clausen’s church is an accidental and flimsy thought construction, because it is outside history or is built on a leap over all intervening history back to the Bible, then grundtvig himself feels that with his conception of the church he describes the true and historical given church.10 indeed, he in fact believes that he is speaking on behalf of the church, as is indicated in the title of the work. with this thought grundtvig not only expresses that he has more respect for the tradition than Clausen. the force of his argument lies in the fact that by giving up the church as something historical one in fact gives up that Christianity can be present today. if this is the case, then it is due to the fact that grundtvig against the background of his newly won view of the church presupposes that the human being in the sacraments during the church service meets the living word from the mouth of Christ. precisely that god himself speaks to human beings in the church service is what ties past and present together. according to grundtvig, there is thus “undeniably born a Christianity on earth, since there lies not only such a Christianity behind us in history but there stands such Christianity alive before us, where we hear the faith in Jesus Christ confessed, and the sacraments are distributed in his name; thus the true Christian Church is a fact, which cannot be blown away by vapid dreams.”11 grundtvig claims several times in the Church’s Rejoinder that Clausen’s whole project consists of a vapid dream and calls Clausen’s church a castle in the air. In other words, one finds the true church in the congregation’s faith and not in the scripture. grundtvig in The Church’s Rejoinder conceives his view both as a H.n. Clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1825. 10 Cf. the motto of the work from the Confessio Augustana, article 7: “Una sancta ecclesia perpetuo mansura sit.” 11 grundtvig, Udvalgte Skrifter, vol. 4, p. 416.

9

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

101

criticism of the lutheran tradition and an attempt to continue it. on the one hand, it is clear that in the struggle against Clausen’s rationalism he must break with the lutheran scriptural principle, although he excuses luther and the reformers with the consideration that their special historical situation was to struggle against the papacy. on the other hand, grundtvig felt that in his claim that the church existed before the scripture, he is closer to luther and the reformers than Clausen. they also agreed that faith and the church are a presupposition for interpreting scripture. this is in opposition to Clausen, who, according to grundtvig, claims that scripture is a presupposition for obtaining faith and the church. regarded from the other side, in The Church’s Rejoinder grundtvig emphasizes that Christianity is its own form of experience, which lives its own prereflective life, something which exists before all speculative writings about it, literally and in principle just as the church existed historically before the new testament was written. He believed that his life’s great discovery was precisely a discovery of something which already existed and not a discovery of something new. therefore, his message was that one, as a theologian, should not believe that by imitating science, one can come some way to discovering what Christian faith amounts to but merely notice what the congregation freely confesses. grundtvig believed after 1825 that the task of theology is to obtain greater insight into the large continuity which the Christian already finds himself in. C. The Church Struggle the result of The Church’s Rejoinder was hardly encouraging for grundtvig. in the work grundtvig had demanded that Clausen either withdraw his views or give up his position as instructor at the Faculty of theology. if he did not do so, then grundtvig would, on behalf of the church, declare him to be a false teacher. in The Church’s Rejoinder Grundtvig had grounded this statement with the claim that to fight against false doctrine was in fact a part of the pastor’s oath which he had signed. Based on this and based on the work’s unusually mocking tone as a whole, grundtvig was condemned once again by the public. moreover, Clausen raised a libel case against him, with the result that grundtvig, after fatiguing legal proceedings, was condemned to life-long censorship in october 1826. prior to this grundtvig had quit his position, officially in protest against having a libel case raised against him, although he was merely doing his duty by raising his voice against false teachings. in reality it was perhaps rather that it weighed on him again to feel himself completely misunderstood in the eyes of the public. However, one can say that things from here on slowly began to change. it was at this time that the first enduring disciples began to gather around him. One should mention especially the two young theologians a.g. rudelbach and J.C. lindberg, who already in February 1825 had asked grundtvig to collaborate on the publication of a new journal, Theologisk Maanedsskrift, which had as its primary goal to fight rationalism. lindberg especially was very active in the church struggle between the grundtvigian and the Clausenian parties, which followed in the wake of the libel case, and was himself several times close to being condemned to censorship. lindberg claimed, just as grundtvig had done, that it was absurd that the rationalist

102

Anders Holm

pastors who in reality taught against the official orthodox doctrine (including the bishops who had taken Clausen’s side) had the power to fight against those who were close to what the pastor’s oath prescribed. if there was anyone who should go, it was them, claimed lindberg. it was views like these, which were also disputed by other followers of grundtvig, which resulted in the little grundtvigian party which now arose being called “the orthodox.” Kierkegaard, who clearly knew the Theologisk Maanedsskrift, frequently applies this term to the grundtvigians. But lindberg should also be mentioned because in the following years he continued to defend and keep contact with various layman movements and among others took the initiative with the journal, Maanedsskrift for Christendom og Historie (1830–31) and the weekly Nordisk Kirketidende (1832–1841), which later became the Dansk Kirketidende (1845–), which presented views which went against the dominant stream in the state Church. Kierkegaard in his journals often shows a close familiarity with these journals. strangely enough, grundtvig was rather passive in this struggle with the church. there was something chary about this whole miserable affair, he thought, which could only be due to the state Church’s decrees for compulsory law in questions of faith.12 therefore, he began as early as 1827 to change his view about to what degree Clausen and his like-minded colleague ought to withdraw from the church, as he himself had claimed, and which lindberg had several times continued to do. By the same token, he felt it unreasonable that regardless of which side one saw the matter from, the law in force led to a compulsion of faith and conscience. in extension of this, he became aware that he himself had been wrong when in the 1810s he wanted to force his Christianity on the world. this led grundtvig in the following years to various books and articles in lindberg’s journals to argue for the freedom of religion, the separation of church and state or liturgical freedom, freedom of preaching and the possibility of breaking the parish bond. on this point grundtvig was inspired by several journeys to england (1829–31), where he had encountered the special decree regarding the Free churches in england. lindberg also changed his procedure. instead of the hopeless struggle against Clausen’s party inside the church, he realized that one must fight for freedom of assembly and changes in the laws. over the following years he constantly supported the rights of the revivalists around the country, and held (partly while grundtvig was in england) from 1831 a series of meetings in his home, to which a number of young like-minded grundtvigians, including the young p.C. Kierkegaard, began to come. in the end lindberg collected signatures from 83 families in Copenhagen13 stating their desire to form a free congregation with grundtvig as pastor. after a complicated fight and several rejections, the government ultimately gave in, and on February 29, 1832 the first Grundtvigian congregation received permission to hold Freedom of religion and the present People’s Church decree was first introduced in denmark in 1849. up until then the state Church existed. 13 when the old Kierkegaard, who as we have seen together with his sons søren and peter Christian had an attachment to this milieu, was asked to sign, his answer was no. His explanation was that he feared for the future of his sons, since at that time it had become very difficult for Grundtvigians to obtain a university appointment. 12

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

103

meetings in the Frederik’s Church in Copenhagen, however, without administering baptism or the communion. This permission was a preliminary victory for Grundtvig and the first step on the road to the church laws which were introduced with the Constitution in 1849 and in the years thereafter.14 From then on grundtvig’s basic view on church politics was cemented: as it is clear from the famous work from 1834, An Impartial View of the Danish State Church,15 he wished the greatest possible freedom inside the state Church (that is, the free choice of pastor, freedom of ritual, freedom of conscience, and freedom of faith). the state Church is namely, he claims in this work, no church at all but only a civil institution, which houses the true invisible church as a foreign guest. in a famous verse he expressed this as follows some years previous: only the creator’s hand can Build the house with lofty rooms, only god the Father’s spirit Can from heaven descend to dust; Here from trunks of tender beechwood under songs of nightingales we are building but a guest-room For a heavenly eucharist.16

therefore, there should be room for both the rationalists and the old-fashioned Christians. in the central issue, this view also proved to have a future. it was in step with many of the time’s other demands for tolerance. This is reflected not least of all in Grundtvig’s many conflicts with J.P. Mynster, who became bishop in 1834. although recent research has made him more progressive and tolerant than previously assumed,17 mynster was a proponent of the state Church ordinance. He was therefore with good reason very unsettled by the charismatic grundtvig’s powerful voice. Both in a series of cases on compulsory baptism of the children of the Baptists and in a proposal about a modernized ritual, which should be followed by all pastors, mynster ended up having to cede to grundtvig and the grundtvigians. in particular, the case at the beginning of the 1840s in which p.C. Kierkegaard opposed

grundtvig’s most direct result is the law about the dissolution of the parish bond from april 1855. 15 n.F.s. grundtvig, Den Danske Stats-Kirke upartisk betragtet, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1834. 16 [grundtvig], Grundtvigs Sang-Værk, vols. 1–6, ed. by magnus stevns et al., Copenhagen: det danske Forlag. 1944–64, vol. 1, p. 62: “Huset med de høie Sale / Tømres kun af Skaber-Haand / Maa fra Himmelen neddale, / Som til Støvet Herrens Aand! / Vi af bløde Bøge-Stammer / Under Nattergale-Sang, / Bygge kun et Giæste-Kammer / Til en himmelsk Alter-Gang!” english translation quoted from: N.F.S. Grundtvig. Tradition and Renewal. Grundtvig’s Vision of Man and People, Education and Church, in Relation to World Issues Today, ed. by Christian thodberg and anders pontoppidan thyssen, Copenhagen: the danish institute 1983, p. 171. 17 For example, Jens rasmussen, En brydningstid, odense: odense universitetsforlag 2002. 14

104

Anders Holm

the demand to forcefully baptize the children of Baptists became an embarrassing affair. the further development of church politics will not be elaborated upon here. we should simply note that grundtvig for the rest of his life continued the struggle for the maximal account of freedom within the church, and that he thereby succeeded in making his mark on the church ordinance which was established in denmark in the middle of the nineteenth century. in the years 1848–49 grundtvig was a member of the legislative house of parliament and in the following ten years was several times a member of the parliament, although most of his proposals were voted down since they did not have any substance with respect to Realpolitik. the people likewise never received the kind of freedom in the church that grundtvig had dreamt of. the permission to hold meetings in the Frederik’s Church was the starting shot for grundtvig’s public image growing in the course of the 1830s. His group of followers and congregation grew steadily from then on, and the whole thing culminated with him being released from censorship and giving the famous Within Living Memory lectures at Borch’s College in 1838, which was a huge popular success. moreover, the assumption of power by a new king in 1839 had great significance. Christian VIII (helped by his Grundtvigian-minded queen Caroline Amalie) was significantly better disposed towards grundtvig than his predecessor Frederik vi. this paved the way for grundtvig being named pastor in vartov Church in 1839, where Kierkegaard heard him preach a few times. This position provided Grundtvig for the first time in many years with a steady income, and with its limited obligations it became an extremely favorable point of departure for grundtvig’s public and political activity, along with being a center for the constantly growing community, which from then on gathered around him. Thus the ground was made fertile for the great influence on social development which grundtvig was to have in the years to come. during two decades the judgment on him thus changed from that of a fanatical madman who no one took seriously to a situation where it must have been difficult to escape having an opinion about him. D. The Ecclesial View this great turn in grundtvig’s relation to the public was of course not only a result of the success with the fact that many people believed that things in the course of the church struggle were taking the correct direction with respect to church politics, but it was also connected with the fact that many people felt attracted by the theology and the conception of church service which stemmed from grundtvig’s matchless discovery in 1825, the so-called ecclesial view, which Kierkegaard as a rule calls “grundtvig’s theory of the church.” in 1826 and 1827 grundtvig over several numbers of the Theologisk Maanedsskrift expanded on his view in two long treatises: “on the true Christianity” and “on Christianity’s truth.”18 Here he discusses to what degree the rationalists’ modern Bible study or his own scripturen.F.s. grundtvig, “om den sande Christendom,” Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vol. 4, 1826, pp. 4–24, pp. 97–118, pp. 195–216; vol. 5, 1826, pp. 218–57; “om Christendommens sandhed,” Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vol. 6, 1826, pp. 18–38, pp. 117–53, pp. 212–44; 18

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

105

based theology and lutheran Christianity can be the truth of Christianity. again he has in mind the laypeople. if true Christianity were merely a competition about who was the best in interpreting the biblical texts, it would be entirely improbable that the common man could ever have understood anything by it. it serves no purpose to confuse Christianity with the Bible. if one wants to know what true Christianity is, one must instead turn towards the testimony in the history of the church, which the new testament is itself a part of. the evidence is the Christians’ own faith and hope, which “they from the time of arild confessed and based on which they were baptized.”19 this testimony in history is what gathers Christians in history across the board in spite of various parties and schools in Christianity, states grundtvig, with reference to the controversy between himself and the rationalists. in the two treatises grundtvig thereby implicitly understands a division, which becomes more significant in his thought from this point onward, namely, the division between “church and school,” which at this point meant a division between church and theology. In the church, he says, there cannot be conflict. Here unity is based exclusively on baptism and the communion, and the Christians’ free confession. the church is a community of belief, a life in itself. in the school things are different. Here people should be able to discuss everything, for example, the interpretation of the Bible, without the unity of the church needing to be threatened. the school should have no power over the church and vice versa. this view corresponds to his new position in church politics. Both in the two mentioned treaties and in a number of other theological writings in the decades which followed,20 grundtvig expanded and deepened these thoughts from the ecclesial view to a dynamic point of departure for both his own activity and that of others. what is most important in relation to Kierkegaard’s criticism of grundtvig is that grundtvig, based on his thought about the relation between church and scripture, introduces another division: namely the division, inspired by paul, between words and writing [Ord og Skrift]: if Christianity in the church was true and living in contrast to the biblical text, this also meant that there is a difference between words and writing. previously grundtvig had believed that the scripture was god’s revealed word, but in recognition that this was mistaken, he now realized that the Bible’s letters were dead or, more correctly, only gave information about the living words in the apostles’ church. the word, by contrast, as the living word, for grundtvig was in god’s own word at baptism and the communion. that god’s own word is present at baptism and the communion has, for grundtvig as for luther, its point of departure in the fact that these two sacraments were introduced by the lord, who therefore, by means of the Holy spirit, is present in what is said in the words of institution and in the apostles’ Creed. this is a view that Kierkegaard is close to in several of his upbuilding discourses. For example, vol. 7, 1826, pp. 1–30, pp. 226–75; vol. 8, 1827, pp. 223- 51; and vol. 9, 1827, pp. 30–62, pp. 97–148. 19 grundtvig, Udvalgte Skrifter, vol. 4, p. 516. 20 Here we can mention Skal den Lutherske Revolution virkelig fortsættes? (1831), Om Daabspagten (1832) and Kirkelige Oplysninger for Lutherske Christne (1840–42). Kierkegaard refers to all of these works.

106

Anders Holm

one often encounters the view that it is the voice of Christ that one hears at the altar. the living word is, for grundtvig, is at the very heart of the ecclesial view and an expression for the communication between god and man: “in question and answer.”21 in the church the living god speaks to the living human being, who answers with confession and praise. the living word is therefore connected in an ingenious fashion with the trinitarian understanding of history: through the spirit of god, Christianity has propagated itself in the living word from god’s own mouth in the history of the church. E. The Living Word and the Giant Spirit of the North Closely connected to this theological point of departure, grundtvig attempts in several places to give more natural explanation of the advantage of the living oral word over the written word. when the living word is to be preferred to the written, it is because it is better able to communicate spirit [Aand]. in this connection, grundtvig is thinking not of the Holy spirit but also of the spirit which can be in other people beside Christians. Beginning with the Danne-Virke period from 1816 to 1819. grundtvig argued for the claim that the word is a “spiritual body,” that is, a unity of sense and spirit. in the sound of the native language the living word is in a special way in a position to communicate a spiritual message, grundtvig claims. the Holy spirit’s connection to the popular language [folketungen] is special due to the fact that it is able to place itself in contact with the spirit of the people [folkeånden]. grundtvig believes that this must be the meaning of the miracle of pentecost (acts 2:4–11), where the Holy spirit reproduces itself in the various languages. all of this is the background for grundtvig, who, after a series of tentative efforts at the end of the 1820s, in the beginning of the 1830s takes up anew his old interest in the ancient norse people and their mythology on a theoretical level. the undisputed main work in this context, which is found in The Auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s library, is the famous Mythology, or Metaphorical Language, of the North from 1832,22 which is the work which, with its significance for the high school movement, must be one of the books in danish literature which has had the largest history of influence in Denmark. One of the fundamental ideas in the work is that grundtvig regards mythology as a people’s highest spiritual ideas, but no longer, as was the case prior to 1810, as a matter of salvation for him himself. mythology is the human ideal representation in heathenism, which points toward Christianity, but precisely because it is heathen it must be understood anthropologically and not theologically: it is neither religion nor knowledge of the world’s creation that i will learn or derive from the myths of the heathens; but it is the world-historical main people’s view of human life, and what stands in connection with it, that i have the pleasure of tracing and

grundtvig, Udvalgte Skrifter, vol. 5, p. 369. n.F.s. grundtvig, Nordens Mytologi eller Sindbilled-Sprog historisk-poetisk udviklet og oplyst, 2nd revised ed., Copenhagen: schubothe 1832. 21 22

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

107

elucidating, partly for the light that every people’s myths cast on their history and party for the profit of colorful metaphorical language that we can gain from them.23

precisely the idea that every people’s mythology has great metaphorical or symbolical significance for its spirit becomes absolutely central when Grundtvig over the next 10 years writes and publishes the huge three-volume work, Handbook on World History.24 the spirit or the spirit of the people is what expresses the connection in every people’s essence and history—the people’s characteristic features. therefore, every people’s ancient patterns of representation and mythology have significance in the present. in this context it becomes obvious that the spirit of the people is an analogous phenomenon to the Holy spirit, but also that it is not the same. the spirit of a people is a presupposition in the heathen people, which is present before Christianity, or, as it has been said not incorrectly about grundtvig’s view, it is every people’s old testament. it is important in Mythology of the North (1832)25 that grundtvig does not see any opposition between the Holy spirit and the spirit of the people and that he, moreover, holds heathenism in high esteem. this high evaluation of heathenism is something new, and it arises from the fact that his matchless discovery has freed him from wanting to bring Christianity into every human expression and activity. a heathen person or a heathen people are human beings who have not yet met Christianity in the pact of baptism. analogous with his thought about the individual person’s growth, he does not think that Christianity is something that the people can receive by means of conversion. it is a movement in time. Just as the human being enters into a new and qualitatively different relation with baptism but does not for this reason become another person without his previous history, grundtvig does not believe in Mythology of the North that the Holy spirit puts an end to the spirit of a people, which, as the people’s natural spirit, continues to assert its influence. against this background, grundtvig in Mythology of the North speaks as a norse person on behalf of the spirit of the north and interprets throughout the work the mythology and its gods as an expression of this spirit. grundtvig thinks that the spirit of the north must also necessarily show itself in the present. He sees it in an especially powerful form in enterprising england, which due to the interwoven past of england and the north also bears the spirit of the north. But when it comes to the goal which grundtvig has with his contemporary age, he directs his eyes to denmark and the north because he does not count on being able to make a difference in england. in other words, in Mythology of the North grundtvig wants to address his contemporary age on behalf of the spirit. the lives of gods and heroes should be lived today as a spiritual struggle, and grundtvig desires, parallel to the church struggle, that there be the greatest possible amount of freedom in this struggle. the spirit of the north cannot be received by force. therefore, grundtvig’s interpretation of the mythology in the book is of the greatest relevance for the present. every grundtvig, Udvalgte Skrifter, vol. 5, p. 535. n.F.s. grundtvig, Haandbog i Verdens-Historien efter de bedste Kilder, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1833–43 (vol. 3 published at J.H. schobothe). 25 grundtvig, Nordens Mytologi. 23 24

108

Anders Holm

norse person (the reader) with any self-respect should be able to understand this, grundtvig thinks. in Mythology of the North grundtvig is not in principle an opponent of the spirit of other peoples, although his position is often conceived as such. it is, however, true that he emphasizes as a characteristic of the spirit of the north that it is a truth- and freedom-loving spirit, which struggles in history with a highly developed historical consciousness. and against this background he criticizes other spirits, for example, the roman, which he believes bring coercion and force into spiritual questions. a contemporary offshoot, he believes, is rationalist scholarly spirit, against which the Norse freedom-loving spirit must fight with every spiritual means. Therefore, it is a question of awakening the giant spirit of the norse from the depths of history. it is, however, characteristic that the norse heroes, who incarnate the spirit of the north are not flawless; it follows from the entire logic that they cannot be so because they are an expression of the heathen human life. what is most important in the present context is that grundtvig lets the natural human life have a value and significance of its own prior to Christianity, which he believes is fundamentally human. Just as there is a difference between the school and the church, so also there is a difference between faith [Troe] and view or opinion [Anskuelse]. while faith concerns thoughts which are directed towards Christ, view or opinion, by contrast, is a view of existence which Christians share with people whom grundtvig calls “naturalists.” the naturalists are a people who are also aware that what is most essential in human life is spirit. grundtvig believes, somewhat surprisingly, that one must be able to be in agreement with such people that human beings were created in god’s image, have experienced a fall and hereafter need to repair the damage. the difference lies only in the question of whether the damage can be repaired naturally or not. this difference, says grundtvig, one should leave alone and agree to go to school together. Here lies the background to grundtvig’s ideas of the school, his enlightenment ideas and the special Danish High School, which has had such great significance for the traditions in the danish school system. the High school was formed to educate and enlighten uneducated farmers, and for this reason the idea of the High school was one of the few grundtvigian ideas that spread abroad. especially in the third World one finds his ideas in practice today. Grundtvig was of the conviction that one should open a forum for discussion for people with all kinds of views, and not educate them with an eye towards conversion to Christianity. on this point he was far more open towards those with different ideas and far from his views from the 1810s. with general education, grundtvig believed, the school will, like John the Baptist, point towards Christianity. Faith is in any case not a matter for the school, and it is therefore a great mistake to have instruction in Christianity in the public schools, grundtvig claims. Closely connected to the contemporary political developments, grundtvig in the 1830s published a long series of other works on the school, which only exercised an influence after his death. Important for Grundtvig’s ideas about the school, which was in extension of the efforts which are mentioned here, is the idea that the living word has a function in instruction, which corresponds to its application in the church. thus the living communication between teacher and student corresponds structurally to the

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

109

communication between god and man in the church. grundtvig wishes the greatest amount of freedom for the living communication: not only freedom to communicate but a freedom which rests on the fact that the conversation does not take place like a teaching or examination, but on the contrary as a wholly equal relation between teacher and student: a reciprocal conversation, where both partners are open for spirit in the natural human life.26 grundtvig also thought politically and nationally in extension of Mythology of the North. in order to strengthen the danish sense of a people, he had in 1839 together with, among others, p.C. Kierkegaard, grounded a “danish society,” a club which was supposed to be a center for strengthening national consciousness. moreover, the dynamic times with the change in the political order in 1849 and the schleswig wars in both 1848–50 and 1864 caused him to author a multitude of poems and political writings. not least of these was his nationalist weekly, Danskeren (1848–51), with which grundtvig attempted to awaken the danes’ consciousness of their national history. the main thing for him was that danishness should be preserved for the future, and one therefore senses a certain skepticism in relation to the political trends of the day. However, it should certainly be mentioned in this context that grundtvig saw the age’s various thoughts about freedom as a good sign at the time, but he was at the same time worried that a foreign constitution would threaten the danishness of the people. For this reason it was only relatively late that grundtvig became an advocate of a free constitution, which was to come in 1849. through his years as a politician and member of the parliament he was an active spokesman for freedom in the ecclesial question, questions about the school, and the rights of peasants. Although Grundtvig thus had a political influence for the future like few others, he was, however—as previously mentioned—in his own time, in the end, a kind of spirit with many unrealistic dreams: only a few of his concrete political ideas were actualized in just the way that he had imagined. F. The Hymns and Continued Theological Development after 1825 the entire readjustment towards an engagement for the school and society had, as noted, arisen from “the matchless discovery,” which in its point of departure was a view of the church. it is also in the church that grundtvig has exercised his greatest influence. This is due primarily to his hymns, which after “the matchless discovery” occupy a place in grundtvig’s production which is entirely unique. after 1825 it was nothing new that grundtvig was a poet or hymnist. By that time he had already written a multitude of hymns and poems. what was new was his certainty about what the church and Christianity were, which gave him a formula with which to write his hymns. it is characteristic that grundtvig in his hymns in a much more effortless manner leaps between verse reproductions of Christianity in the biblical texts, in the community’s history and present, than he does in his prose. in connection with this, it should be mentioned that grundtvig is perhaps especially known as the poet of the the relation between grundtvig and Kierkegaard’s views on pedagogy has never been examined in the research. as will be discussed later, this is one of the areas where Kierkegaard expresses himself most positively towards grundtvig. 26

110

Anders Holm

congregation, the Holy spirit, and pentecost. Here are some strophes from the much beloved pentecost hymn, In All its Strength now Shines the Sun: in all its strength now shines the sun the light of life over the throne of grace, now comes out whitsun lily time, now we have summer sheer and mild, now more than angel voices foretell a golden harvest in Jesus’ name. all this is caused by the spirit who comes down all this is worked by the spirit who speaks not of himself, but to our encouragement out of love, with the voice of truth, In the name of the Word, who here became flesh And ascended into heaven in flesh and blood. awake all deep sounds to praise the savior of mankind, gather together all languages In a sacrificial cup of thanksgiving, sound out now over the lord’s table, the full choir of god’s Church.27

we see here a typical example of how grundtvig in his hymns wants to show how history and the present are united in the Holy spirit. moreover, we see, what is just as typical for grundtvig’s hymns, that god himself talks with people in the eucharist, here during the communion: “the lord’s table.” in addition to this, there is the universal openness which is in the view on baptism in the ecclesial view, and this is the reason that grundtvig can turn toward other Christian traditions, from which he translates and adopts a number of hymns. thus, for example, the first volume of Collection of Songs for the Danish Church from 1837,28 with its 401 hymns was grundtvig’s largest ever single hymn collection including reworkings of both lutheran, anglican, greek orthodox, and roman grundtvig, “i al i sin glands nu straaler solen,” in N.F.S. Grundtvig: Værker i udvalg, vols. 1–10, ed. by georg Christensen and Hal Koch, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1940–49, vol. 10, pp. 115–17: “I Al sin Glans nu straaler Solen, / Livs-lyset over Naadesstolen, / Nu kom vor Pinselilje-Tid, / Nu har vi Sommer skiær og Blid, / Nu spaaer os meer end Englerøst / I Jesu navn en Gylden høst! // Det volder alt den Aand, som daler, / Det virker alt den Aand, som taler, / Ei af sig selv men os til Trøst, / Af Kiærlighed med Sandheds Røst, / I Ordets, navn som Her blev Kiød, / og foer til Himmels hvid og rød! // Opvaagner alle dybe Toner / Til Pris for Menneskets Forsoner! / Forsamles alle Tungemaal / I Takkesangens Offerskaal! / Istemmer over Herrens Bord / Nu Menighedens fulde Kor!” english translation quoted from a.m. allchin, N.F.S. Grundtvig. An Introduction to his Life and Work, Århus: Århus university press 1997, pp. 282–3. 28 n.F.s. grundtvig, Sang-Værk til den Danske Kirke, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1837–41. volume 1 of this is found in Kierkegaard’s library (ASKB 201). 27

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

111

Catholic hymns. in all grundtvig wrote around 1,500 hymns, and his hymns occupy around one-third of the present danish hymn book. the hymns were often written in close connection with grundtvig’s sermons, which were grundtvig’s theological laboratory. it is characteristic for grundtvig’s sermons and hymns that he does not place the congregation in heaven, but on earth. this is due to his placing great weight on the fact that the resurrection has happened and that he after 1825 was increasingly convinced of the presence of the word of god during the church service. all of this receives a further push at the end of the 1830s in connection with what has been referred to as grundtvig’s greek awakening. in the sermon for easter sunday 1837 he comes, for example, with this excited outburst after having translated a greek hymn by way of introduction: so, Christian friends, on this glorious festival of the resurrection, we who truly feel the lord’s presence must with diligence and joy recall to His honor that the life of His Church and Congregation on earth and the constancy of the people who devote themselves to Jesus Christ the Crucified, are not merely what is called a testimony to His resurrection and ascension but a constant repetition of His victorious battle against death and crystal-clear proof therefore that Jesus Christ has the power to lose His life and the power to take it back again.29

in a way which invites associations with the categories of the early Kierkegaard, there is both a kind of contemporaneity and repetition at work here. these categories in grundtvig, however, belong with the ecclesial view, and they are connected to baptism, the communion, and the apostles’ Creed, which all function as representatives of something beyond. During Kierkegaard’s attack on the Church in 1855, when Grundtvig for the first time became aware of him, grundtvig not only protests but is also led to accentuate and make more precise certain of his views about the ecclesial view. He does this both in sermons and hymns but also in the theological work, The Christian Knowledge from Childhood,30 which originally appeared as articles from 1855 to 1861. against the late Kierkegaard’s explicit demand for a visible Christianity recognizable by suffering, grundtvig claims that it is only in the apostles’ Creed, the sacraments and the congregation’s songs of praise that one finds “the signs of life” for Christianity’s presence in the world. these “signs of life” are the only reasonable objective sign for the otherwise hidden faith and inwardness. moreover, in contrast to Kierkegaard’s paradigm of imitation, which sharpens the difference between the human and the Christian life, grundtvig sharpens his idea that the Christian life is analogous to human life. in both places one must grow more, grundtvig thinks, but to believe oneself to be equal to the “fully grown Christians” in the suffering in this world is obviously absurd, according to grundtvig. From sometime in the 1810s and onwards grundtvig 29 n.F.s. grundtvig, Grundtvigs Prædikener, 1822–29 og 1832–39, vols. 1–12, ed. by Christian thodberg, Copenhagen: C.e.C. gad 1983–86, vol. 10 (1836–37), p. 172. english translation quoted from N.F.S. Grundtvig. Tradition and Renewal, ed. by thodberg and Thyssen, pp. 179–80. (Translation slightly modified.) 30 n.F.s. grundtvig, Den Christelige Børnelærdom, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: Carl schønberg 1868.

112

Anders Holm

developed the fundamental thought that the baptized human being, in accordance with his best abilities, should try to realize his Christianness, which for him means striving for likeness with Christ. in this way baptism is the entrance to growing into the life of Christ. this growth is nourished by the communion, where the Christian, as in baptism, is confronted with the present god’s word. the late grundtvig did not think like the late Kierkegaard, that Christianity’s effects are visibly recognizable in the world outside the church. on this point they had switched views through the years.31 II. Kierkegaard’s Relation to Grundtvig as can be seen at the end of the present article, Kierkegaard mentions grundtvig in many places in his writings; grundtvig appears both explicitly by name and in the form of frequent allusions. with a quick investigation of the matter, however, there is also another relation which jumps out: grundtvig is only mentioned a few times by name in the published authorship. this fact seems to agree with the impression one has in reading what Kierkegaard writes about grundtvig: grundtvig was a figure on the sideline, who meant a lot to him, mostly in a negative manner, without Kierkegaard ever knowing exactly what he should do with him. as will be clear from the following analysis, they also had overlapping issues but were so different as individuals and in language and style, that it was difficult for them to get on a equal footing. A. “Some Observations on Grundtvig’s Theory of the Church”: 1835 Kierkegaard’s first statements about Grundtvig go all the way back to a few journal entries from 1832–33,32 which briefly mention some points in Grundtvig’s sermons. these entries can hardly be said to say anything essential about the relation to grundtvig, but they are an indication that Kierkegaard had heard grundtvig preach and that he became an integrated part of Kierkegaard’s consciousness at an early period. one must wait until may 1835, before grundtvig in earnest is granted a few weighty words along the way. Here one finds in and around a long entry covering several pages, entitled “some observations on grundtvig’s theory of the Church,” a series of considerations about grundtvig’s ecclesial view, which becomes decisive for

introductions available to grundtvig in english: N.F.S. Grundtvig: Tradition and Renewal, ed. by thodberg and thyssen; Heritage and Prophecy: Grundtvig and the EnglishSpeaking World, ed. by a.m. allchin, d. Jasper, J.H. schjørring and K. stevenson, Århus: Århus university press 1993; allchin, N.F.S. Grundtvig: An Introduction to his Life and Work, The first of these has been an inspiration for the introduction here and the use of English terminology. at the end of this book there is “a Brief survey of grundtvig literature” by Jørgen i. Jensen, which gives an outstanding overview of the existing primary and secondary literature in 1983 as well as what is available in english. 32 Pap. i C 7, i C 9 / JP 5, 5056. one of these refers to Frederik’s Church, where Kierkegaard had heard grundtvig preach. 31

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

113

Kierkegaard’s future picture of grundtvig.33 the timing of this entry is not accidental: Kierkegaard’s ideas about the human being’s subjective determination is at this point in 1835 moving forward quickly, and this gives Kierkegaard a tool with which to attempt to think through his familiarity to grundtvig and the grundtvigian milieu. this was a wish which was probably not diminished by the fact that his brother peter Christian had at just this point in time been occupied by his Habilitation, which was strongly inspired by grundtvig’s ecclesial view. Although these entries have an unfinished form and thus do not leave the interpreter with an absolute a sense of certainty, they are so important in the present context that i will nonetheless attempt to give a plausible reading of their content: at the point of departure Kierkegaard makes out a form for ecclesial subjectivity, or a subjectivity which can be maintained in the church, and emphasizes in that respect that the most objective confession of faith begins with one thing: I believe. in the entries it looks as if Kierkegaard means that this subjective faith can be set alongside the i’s consciousness of existence,34 and this means it can transferred to the church. He claims: “in a certain sense it is quite correct for the orthodox to say that the Church may be immediately conscious of its existence; I find it just as correct to say that every human being is immediately conscious of his existence.”35 However, this does not convince Kierkegaard of the correctness of what he thinks is central in grundtvig’s theory about the church. what is at issue is the fact that if one assumes consciousness of one’s own existence, then one must at the same time realize that this existence can only be present and not past, he claims. thus it is, for example, meaningless to say: “i am conscious that i exist, ergo, i existed yesterday.”36 therefore, the church likewise cannot claim that merely on the strength of its existence it is also the apostolic Church, for this demands historical evidence, Kierkegaard thinks. thus one is already beyond what the present i (the church) can have consciousness about. all this means—and this is one of the recurring points in relation to grundtvig— that Kierkegaard in 1835 can actually agree with the point in grundtvig’s ecclesial view that the individual encounters the living god in the church, however, only for as long as it is thought pointedly in the present. By contrast, he is extremely skeptical that one by looking at the spiritual history of the church can claim this encounter. Here Kierkegaard of course aims at grundtvig’s idea that the church through history is recognizable by the apostles’ Creed at baptism, since he believes that the focus on history reduces focus on the individual. another decisive point is that Kierkegaard believes that the theory of the apostolic symbol has replaced the Bible, as that which constitutes the church, and that this undertaking has in fact merely introduced the same form of science as was the case previously: “namely, introductory scientific scholarship in which one sought to prove that by having its origin in the apostles in the Papirer edition, Pap. 1 a 56–62 / JP 1, 578–80, JP 5, 5088–91. although Pap. 1 a 56–8 / JP 1, 578–80 are undated in the papers, it seems probable that they come from the same time. 34 Pap. i a 57 / JP 1, 579. 35 Pap. i a 58 / JP 1, 580. 36 ibid. 33

Anders Holm

114

it had the right to constitute the Church.”37 But by replacing one norm-establishing document in the past with another, one has come no further, Kierkegaard seems to think. Kierkegaard continues to sketch the problems with this. it has of course always been that one distinguished the essentially Christian from the less essential, and formerly (that is, before grundtvig’s matchless discovery) one held forth the Bible as that which contained the essential. the difference between now and the past is in fact that while in the past it was more vague, according to Kierkegaard, now: grundtvig believes that he has found an expression that once and for all decides what is Christian faith and what is not. this he now is obliged to maintain as essential and, of course, must most stringently insist upon it, which lindberg has also done very consistently; he must insist on every letter, yes, every thousandth part of a jot, for otherwise the door is immediately opened for determinations from man’s side as to what is Christian and what is not, and in that case he must reasonably grant the same right to every other man, and in that case his theory comes to be on the same level as the others.38

if one should give an account of the essence of this statement, it must be that Kierkegaard believes that grundtvig and lindberg have actually transferred grundtvig’s previous conservative faith in the Bible as god’s word to the apostles’ Creed. this is an extremely problematic maneuver, Kierkegaard thinks, for if one could imagine that the rationalists were to go in for grundtvig’s theory of the apostles’ Creed, then in fact grundtvig’s old discussion with them would emerge about how freely one can interpret this document, which is constitutive of the church. this interpretation is in agreement with the fact that Kierkegaard in what follows states: But if we look now at the expression of Christian faith upon which he [sc. grundtvig] believes the Church to be based, we must admit that viewed in and of itself it is impossible for an idea to find completely adequate expression in words—even if the deity himself spoke the words, there would always be a little snag as soon as man sets about to understand them.39

Kierkegaard thus understands grundtvig’s relation to the apostles’ Creed as a kind of literal faith, and for this reason he rejects it. even if god was behind this, the problem is that the document must be understood by human beings. another problem in extension of this is that if one wants to claim, as lindberg has done, that the apostles’ Creed has been passed along by inspired people, then the original language would have to have priority before all other languages. moreover Kierkegaard’s point seems to be that all the well-known problems in modern biblical studies surrounding inspiration and origin arise now in connection with the apostles’ Creed. precisely for this reason the theory about the apostles’ Creed as the basis for the church is not

37 38 39

Pap. i a 59 / JP 5, 5088. Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. ibid.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

115

in the least better than if one assumed the just as uncertain biblical text. in short, “Grundtvig’s theory has no significance whatsoever.”40 there are several reasons to take note of these early entries. First, it is clear that Kierkegaard in fact knows the ecclesial view quite well. it jumps out at the reader that he has read several of the works in the church struggle with interest, and against the background of his newly won view of subjectivity, he thinks that he is able both to reject what is mistaken in the grundtvigian defense of the historical origin of the apostles’ Creed and to point towards the self-contradiction which lies in rejecting the Bible’s authoritative validity in the church and inserting the apostles’ Creed instead. Here arises a new introductory science, as he calls it, with an allusion to isagogics. nonetheless one can remark that he apparently is not in doubt that there exists a living present church, like that which grundtvig describes. it is just nonsense to claim that it is necessarily identical with the apostles’ Church, since one cannot deduce the past from existence. on the whole, one can question whether Kierkegaard understood grundtvig correctly in these entries. although he is doubtless correct that lindberg and Grundtvig in a specific situation in church politics defended the individual parts of the apostles’ Creed and its origin in the apostles, it is debatable whether he with this criticism—which, as we shall later see, is repeated in expanded form in the Postscript—hits the nail on the head. He does not seem aware of the fact that the apostles’ Creed for grundtvig is mainly an expression for what one receives a part of at baptism. after 1825 the importance of the apostles’ Creed thus for grundtvig consists, as we have seen, in being a kind of horizon of expectation, which is tied to baptism, while its wording or individual parts ultimately are not what is decisive in grundtvig’s ecclesial view. in connection with this, one can say that theology, according to grundtvig’s ecclesial view, can hardly be called an introductory science. It is instead a discipline, which reflects on the church, which already is living prior to all reflection. The school therefore has no right to determine over the affairs of the church. nevertheless Kierkegaard’s criticism is in truth not without validity. as a consequence of the fact that they did not feel that there was room for their views in the existing state Church ordinance, grundtvig and lindberg argued in the years preceding Kierkegaard’s entries in a manner that one cannot hold it against Kierkegaard for believing that the changes in the exact wording of the baptism ritual were a matter of salvation from their perspective.41 with these remarks Kierkegaard had in an substantial way anticipated the main points which were presented the next time he occupied himself intensively and seriously with grundtvig, namely, when he wrote the Concluding Unscientific Postscript 10 years later. the journal entries therefore testify to a preliminary, but also to a in some aspects enduring, position in his relation to grundtvig.

40 41

1832.

ibid. Cf. n.F.s. grundtvig, Om Daabs-Pagten, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag

116

Anders Holm

B. “The Ale-Norse warrior”: The Criticism from 1835–46 In the following years one finds a number of commentaries of a more or less serious nature on grundtvig in the journals.42 these are mostly short satirical passages, or occasionally isolated points from the aforementioned criticism of grundtvig’s church theory or brief remarks and allusions, which can be seen in the registry at the end of the present article. But now and again one runs across short passages (almost always satirical) with a deeper-going criticism and character portraits, which wish to puncture what Kierkegaard regards as the swollen and puffed up aspect of grundtvig. this is especially true in the time just after grundtvig’s employment in vartov Hospital Church, where Kierkegaard’s criticism is activated by the cult character that arose around grundtvig.43 in fact, Kierkegaard heard grundtvig’s sermons a few times at the beginning of the vartov period, as can be seen from the Journal EE. in 1839, shortly after grundtvig had been made pastor at vartov Hospital Church, Kierkegaard gives his opinion free run in the journals: all of grundtvig’s preaching is nothing but a perpetually repeated exodus of the imagination so that it is impossible to follow along, a weekly evacuation. He continually says the reason the Church up until now has not appeared in its full radiance is that it suffers from external pressures; when these are gone, it will be seen—yes, then it will be seen whether this Church of his is the perfect Church or whether in many ways it does not need a preacher like mynster, who always leads everything back to the individual; that is where the battle must be and must not lose itself in such historical ramblings.44

this view is elaborated on in a draft to Stages on Life’s Way from 1844–45: in relation to the religious, all historical presentation is a diversion. the listener forgets himself over the papists and the twilight, over luther and the sunrise, over the matchless discovery which was made in Copenhagen. But in relation to the religious it is precisely negative to forget oneself. a religious speaker must not be different from his listeners as the teachers ex cathedra are different. the richer in spirit and the more knowledgeable the religious speaker is, the greater is the self-possession required in order to achieve unity with the listener. the religious speaker should be distinguished by his having existentially made sure of what the simplest of men also knows. a hawk’s-eye view of world history does not replace a sober insight into oneself; the most matchless discoveries, even the discovery of gunpowder, do not compensate as a substitute for a lack of self-knowledge and of maieutic skill in relation to others.45

Apart from a few insignificant short references, Grundtvig is not mentioned by Kierkegaard in the years 1840–44. this is presumably simply due to the fact that Kierkegaard in the intervening period was not occupied with themes which would have brought grundtvig on to his horizon, but in connection with the writing of Philosophical Fragments he saw grundtvig again as an opposition to his own views. 43 the church service with grundtvig in vartov became a local attraction—something that one had to have experienced as a Copenhagener. 44 SKS 18, 57, ee:165 / KJN 2, 52. 45 Pap. vi B 11 / JP 1, 626. 42

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

117

in this claim Kierkegaard presumably is not entirely wrong. at least grundtvig occasionally preached about church history, and there is ample evidence that although the matchless discovery at the point of departure was a defense for laypeople, grundtvig himself was hardly a preacher that one could easily understand. But yet, it was said in opposition to the experience that Kierkegaard expresses, that people were very happy listening to him. In this context it ought to be mentioned that not all of Kierkgaard’s statements fit into this generally critical disposition. in fact one can discover now and again that Kierkegaard uses grundtvig for his own causes. Four days after the quoted statement about grundtvig’s sermons in 1839, he writes: mark 7:31–37 is a description of human knowledge as it was before Christianity—“He could not hear,” for heaven was not opened to him and god’s word had not resounded [gjenlydt] (for everything was indeed created by god, but there still was not the resounding [gjenlyden], the resonance in creation), “and he could speak only with difficulty,” for since what he had to say was something he himself had found out, it was worth writing home about. and so great was the error in the world that it was not enough, as it once was, to say: let there be light; but Christ sighed and said ephphata, and such is Christian eloquence that it has to praise god even when it is forbidden. (“and Christ charged them to tell no one.”)46

this passage which niels Jørgen Cappelørn has brought to light is remarkable because the word “Gjenlyd” is a basic Grundtvigian concept and a fixed part of his hymns and theology, for which reason the suspicion of a straightforward positive effect offers itself and points towards the many similarities in anthropology that one can find in Grundtvig and Kierkegaard.47 the problem with discovering what positive influence Grundtvig might have had is, however, that Kierkegaard is much more zealous with his criticism than with his praise, and for this reason it is extremely difficult to find quotations like that above. the period between 1835 and the Postscript is, however, mostly characterized by its running satirical journal entries, from which especially one concept deserves to be mentioned, namely the “ale-norse” or “ølnordiske.” Although this is difficult to translate, Kierkegaard invents this concept in order to make people aware that grundtvig is in fact able with the help of his historical visions and norse mythology to intoxicate his contemporary age. in danish the word “ølnordisk” has connotations both to ale, “Øl,” and the old norse, “Det oldnordiske.” Disappointed about Grundtvig’s influence on the age, Kierkegaard, for example, claims in 1844 that “it is terribly harrowing to be a contemporary of this ale-norse warrior.”48 and in 1845 he states that grundtvig, as a bar owner, makes his regular customers dependent on his alcohol, and therefore refers to the grundtvigians as: “the little band of enthusiasts that is formed in pastor grundtvig’s ale-norse SKS 18, 59, ee:171 / KJN 2, 54. For a more extensive account of this quotation and the connection to grundtvig, see niels Jørgen Cappelørn, “gudbilledlighed og syndefald: aspekter af grundtvigs og Kierkegaards menneskesyn på baggrund af irenæus,” Grundtvig-Studier, 2004, pp. 143ff. 48 SKS 18, 220, JJ:251 / KJN 2, 202. 46 47

118

Anders Holm

taproom.”49 if this were not enough, according to Kierkegaard, grundtvig has also “for all eternity prostituted the ladies with his sausage chatter and his ale-norse indecency.”50 However, in Kierkegaard’s writings there does not seem to be any actual or more extensive taking of a position on grundtvig’s relation to the norse and the danish past, which, as is known, plays an enormous role in grundtvig’s thought. what may be the worst for Kierkegaard is the tendency to regard a person as grundtvig regards himself and as his disciples regard him, namely, as a living national treasure or a seer and prophet of world history. in an entry entitled “Fragment of a letter” Kierkegaard in 1845–46 presents the problem with all the satire he can muster: it begins with him being amazed that it is said in the contemporary age, that what Grundtvig had previously prophesied is now coming into fulfillment. Of course, Kierkegaard knows quite well that grundtvig had previously predicted rather a lot about Denmark and the North, but Kierkegaard has never been successful in finding out what it was about. Nonetheless it is said to be coming into fulfillment: “so I am deucedly sure that one can find out what it is.”51 But no, when he asks what it is, the response is, “Oh, it is, of course, what has been fulfilled.”52 But when he asks what has been fulfilled, the response is “Oh, it is, of course, what he predicted.”53 Thus, one cannot know what he had predicted and what has been fulfilled. But he is a prophet, Kierkegaard claims with badly hidden irony. this criticism is not entirely ungrounded. grundtvig from early on in his poetry developed a prophetic self-symbolism and felt that his significance would become colossal even in those periods where he was most isolated from the public. taken together, most of the remarks about grundtvig between the document in 1835 and the Postscript reveal that Kierkegaard wishes to distance himself from grundtvig’s revivalist-like tendecies. there is no honest attempt to discuss seriously with grundtvig, and no approach to spy out related causes, just as every similarity concerning the presence of god, sacramental theology, and anthropology, which the research has discovered in later years, stands out in its absence. However, Kierkegaard comes closer to grundtvig when he writes the Concluding Unscientific Postscript and again makes use of his journal entries from 1835. C. “Turning the matter so as to relinquish the Bible and resort to the Church”: Grundtvig in the postscript (1846) Already the title of the first part of the Postscript, “the objective issue of the truth of Christianity,” in which Climacus chose to place the criticism of grundtvig, leads the reader to think of the twin treatises from the Theologisk Maanedsskrift in 1826– 27, “on true Christianity” and “on Christianity’s truth.” this is not by accident. The problem that Climacus takes up in the first part is to what extent the truth of 49 50 51 52 53

SKS 18, 256, JJ: 352 / KJN 2, 236. Pap. vi B 8, 3. Pap. vii–1, B 195, p. 375 / M, 385. Pap. vii–1, B 195, p. 375 / M, 386. ibid.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

119

Christianity can be observed, as he says, purely objectively, and he presents two ways that this can be done: “1) historical truth, 2) philosophical truth. viewed as historical truth, the truth must be established by a critical consideration of the various reports, etc., in short, in the same way as historical truth is ordinarily established. in the case of philosophical truth, the inquiry turns on the relation of a doctrine, historically given and verified, to the eternal truth.”54 these two objective approaches to Christianity constitute the point of departure for the two chapters of the first part on, respectively, the historical view, which primarily is gathered into a criticism of grundtvig, and then the speculative view, which takes up primarily Hegel for critical treatment. the problem which is sketched in the introduction to the chapter is entirely dominant with respect to the manner of questioning, which the objective view is the occasion for in the person who questions. the question is characterized as “the inquiring, speculating, knowing subject,” who inquires about the truth, but he is not this if he is asked subjectively: he is not “infinitely, personally, impassionedly interested in his relation to this truth concerning his own eternal happiness.”55 the point is that the objective inquirer for the truth remains without interest, because his perspective ultimately does not contain the existential decision about and appropriation of the truth. For the historical view, the problem is especially, according to Climacus, that even if one imagined that the inquirer or the researching subject was infinitely interested in finding information about the Christian doctrine in history, he would nonetheless have to end up in despair, simply because historical knowledge can never be more than an “approximation,” that is, a knowledge which approaches the truth and is therefore uncertain. Behind this view, one senses Kierkegaard’s reading of lessing, who claimed: “if no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths. that is, accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”56 If one now thinks of Grundtvig, it might at first glance appear odd that Kierkegaard does not immediately have Climacus direct his criticism at the matchless discovery but in the first section of Chapter 1 begins with the form of historical knowledge, which is generated by a study of the Holy script. However, as will be clear later, this is a conscious tactic from Kierkegaard’s hand concerning the composition. in agreement with his criticism from 1835, Climacus can then subsequently show that grundtvig himself is subject to the criticism of contemporary exegetes. with respect to biblical research, the problem is the same as for historical research in general, Climacus believes: “even if the heads of all the critics were mounted on a single neck, one would never arrive at anything more than an approximation.”57 even if the Bible could be regarded as a certain place where one can find the correct Christian doctrine, so that “the important thing is to secure scripture historically-critically”58 SKS 7, 29 / CUP1, 21. ibid. 56 g.e. lessing, “Über den Beweis des geistes und der Kraft,” in Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts und andere Schriften, stuttgart: reclam 1987 [1777], p. 34. 57 SKS 7, 31 / CUP1, 24. 58 ibid. 54 55

Anders Holm

120

or if for that matter it is supposed to be inspired, the objective science would still not work forward to the heart of the matter. Knowledge never gets beyond approximation and always remains unwelcome for the subjective matter of salvation. Climacus is, however, in no way blind to the fact that it can often look as if the entire learned and praiseworthy research is always just about to come to a result about something of significance for someone who is passionately interested in his eternal happiness; indeed, he is constantly held “in suspenso.”59 But this must, however, be with amazement. the result remains absent. so far Climacus is in fact entirely in agreement with grundtvig, which he also later admits: the situation is that he, just like grundtvig, emphasizes that if faith and the church ultimately should be a result of exegesis, then things would end in despair. the knowledge won is all too relative and uncertain. But entirely parallel to the entries in 1835, Kierkegaard in the second section of Chapter 1 gives an account of where their common path comes to an end. the problem is primarily grundtvig’s alternative to the view that the Bible cannot give the certain basis for the believer which is sought: “turning the matter so as to relinquish the Bible and resort to the Church”60 does not, according to Climacus, help with the problem that one cannot build his eternal salvation on approximation. therefore, Climacus must criticize grundtvig’s “matchless discovery” and the entire pomposity which surrounds it. He seems to be in no way convinced of its matchlessness: “it is better and, at least for me, indescribably easy to let grundtvig keep what is his: the matchless discovery.”61 For Climacus, the problem is that “the matchless discovery” is placed in opposition to the dialectical, indeed, in fact is a way of keeping it at a distance. it represents a form of straightforwardness. of course, grundtvig had understood that the Bible in the long run could not hold up to penetrating doubt, Climacus claims, with which he presumably refers to the problematicizing of the text’s historical validity, which followed in the wake of the enlightenment, lessing’s problem and the historical-critical study of the Bible. grundtvig’s error is that he has not seen that the cause for the fact that the Bible cannot be the safe refuge for one who wishes a certain standpoint or a certain decision for how one can gain his eternal salvation is to be found in the very manner in which he asks. what Climacus refers to in this place in the Postscript is that grundtvig had made no distinction between regarding the matter subjectively and objectively. He remains in the objective view, and therefore one must claim both about the attack and the defense of the Bible that “both [are] rooted in a method of approximation, which in its perpetually continued striving is not dialectically adequate for an infinite decision on which an eternal happiness is built.”62 in actuality, says Climacus, it is a pure stroke of luck that grundtvig without dialectical attentiveness could reach his new view of the Bible. therefore, it is not strange that through his church theory he has not gotten past his own presuppositions and reached the dialectical. the result is clear according to Climacus: “Just as previously the Bible was supposed to decide objectively what is the essentially Christian and what is not, now the Church was 59 60 61 62

SKS 7, 33 / CUP1, 26. SKS 7, 42 / CUP1, 36. ibid. SKS 7, 43 / CUP1, 37.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

121

supposed to be the secure objective stronghold. More specifically, it is the Living word in the Church, the Creed, and the word with the sacraments.”63 therefore, Climacus’ main complaint is that grundtvig treats the problem objectively, as if the determination of objective truth would ensure eternal salvation. with this one gets nowhere, but flutters around in an infinite striving, which never reaches its goal. grundtvig has no sense for the fact that the movement is inward and must be a making inward: “the truth is the subject’s transformation within himself.”64 in relation to such a transformation within the subject himself, every outward, sensible and historical certainty must be negative, claims Climacus. with an eye to the journal entries from 1835, it is striking in this passage that Kierkegaard in Climacus has apparently forgotten his idea that there can exist a form of ecclesial subjectivity and identity. But this is also only apparent one realizes when one reads further. Climacus first draws attention to the fact that the problem surrounding subjectivity is already mentioned in Philosophical Fragments, Chapters 4 and 5, which treat the concept of contemporaneity. the point here was that there was no fundamental difference between being a genuine disciple then and now. if one believes that there is a difference, then one confuses the problem with the history of the problem. the more or less direct historical and sense-oriented access to the event is without significance for that which is really at issue, namely, whether God has appeared in human form or not. against this background, Climacus interestingly now grants that grundtvig with his theory of the church in a certain sense responds to the problem from Philosophical Fragments. grundtvig’s theory—especially as set forth by lindberg—seems also by having emphasized the church as something present (understood, in agreement with the idea of true contemporaneity with Christ), and thereby to have eliminated the difficulty with the historical distance to the New testament: “the Church exists; from the Church (as present to, as contemporary with the inquirer, whereby the issue is endowed with the equality of contemporaneity), it is possible to learn what is essentially Christian, since that is indeed what the Church professes. Correct.”65 so far, so good. the problem is just that one in the same breath as one says this truth also says that the church is apostolic and has existed for eighteen hundred years, Climacus claims with the arguments from 1835. this way of thinking also goes into Climacus’ discussion of the living word. Certainly the living word proclaims the church’s existence, but therefore the living word in no way makes probable that the church is eighteen hundred years old. Corresponding to what was said in 1835, Climacus therefore thinks that the living word leads to a new introductory science, which aims at proving the Creed’s historical origin, etc. in the Postscript a clear pattern in relation to grundtvig emerges: Climacus can make use of a part of the ecclesial view but then he must get rid of the rest. He can only go to a certain point but no further. what is correct in it consists in the fact that it looks like the ecclesial view can partially cut away the later historically intermediate period and form a leap between then and now, but the claim of the living 63 64 65

ibid. SKS 7, 44 / CUP1, 38. SKS 7, 45 / CUP1, 39.

Anders Holm

122

word’s historical anchoring is confused, indeed, makes the whole issue unclear: “the Church theory, compared with the Bible theory, had the merit of eliminating the later-historical and turning the historical into the present. But this merit promptly disappears as soon as the more specific qualifications enter the picture.”66 in the context referred to, Climacus, against this background, criticizes, following the same recipe as in 1835, the fact that grundtvig has exchanged the Bible for the Creed, but this time goes more into baptism. also, the sacrament of baptism is an “approximation-object,”67 Climacus thinks, because it is something earlier in time, something that has a past. to be sure, “my father has said so; it says so in the parish register; I have a certificate, and so forth. Yes, I am assured. But let a person have passion enough to grasp the meaning of his own eternal happiness, and then let him try to tie it to his having been baptized—he will despair.”68 Climacus thinks against this background that the great significance of baptism in Grundtvig is connected to Grundtvig’s desire to find a firm basis, with which one can keep the dialectical out. Such a desire for a firm basis is straightforward superstition, according to Climacus. therefore, Climacus actually regards grundtvig as being superstitious. also, in another way, Climacus gives expression for a similar kind of dissatisfaction. grundtvig is a poet and is moved in his immediate passion, he claims. He certainly knows about trials, but does not hold firmly to the dialectic and therefore inserts the magic baptism as a firm historical basis, which can keep the dialectical out. thus, Climacus claims, grundtvig is only able to place his entire activity out in the objective. thereafter Climacus continues the consideration about whether grundtvig’s view of baptism can be distinguished from the Jews’ view of circumcision, asking rhetorically: on this question of one’s eternal happiness, i shall not undertake to decide whether in other respects it is not unchristian to find repose in the certainty that one is baptized, just as the Jews appealed to circumcision and to their being abraham’s children as a decisive demonstration of the God-relationship, that is, to find repose not in a spiritual relationship with god and freedom...but in an external event, that is, to hold the temptation away by means of this magical baptism and not to want to permeate it with faith.69

later Kierkegaard often takes up the theme of Judaism in his journals. due to all the grundtvigian nonsense, Climacus regrets that lindberg, who is a knowledgeable man, wastes his time on the party. especially the party chairman casts shadows over his qualities, and this is the occasion for one of the well-known but not so straightforwardly flattering shots that Climacus aims at Grundtvig: No one wishing to know definitely where he stands could possibly wish to have grundtvig as an ally, especially a person who does not wish to stand where there is commotion, especially when the commotion is the only more specific definition of where he stands....lindberg, on the other hand, has had to stand in the shade. and yet it is in truth something, and something that can with truth be said of lindberg, that he has a 66 67 68 69

SKS 7, 47 / CUP1, 41–2. SKS 7, 49 / CUP1, 43. SKS 7, 49 / CUP1, 44. SKS 7, 50 / CUP1, 44–5.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

123

good head on his shoulders; however, what in truth all this is that is said about grundtvig is high dubious, that he is a seer, bard, prophet, with an almost matchless outlook upon world history and with one eye for the profound.70

right in the middle of this matchless caricature,71 one finds Climacus’ problem in a nutshell. grundtvig’s lack of sense for the dialectical determination of faith brings him to rush about without rest, making noise, and lost. His solutions are only apparent and bring no new possibilities, but only more monstrous assertions and even greater matchless arm movements without any purpose. in the rest of the Postscript, after the first chapter, Grundtvig slips into the background, but, as can be seen in the registry at the end of this article, he comes up between the lines in a number of places with words that cannot be accidental. this is precisely the reason why Jon stewart has quite rightly claimed that it has been neglected in the research to what a significant extent Grundtvig is in fact the real object of criticism here.72 It is, however, something else that it can be difficult to adjudicate when Kierkegaard is speaking of Hegel and when he is speaking of grundtvig and his disciples. For example, he writes as follows: with respect to the past, it is easy to have the illusion that forgets, and in part cannot know, what belongs to the individual and what belongs to that objective order of things that is the spirit of world history. But with regard to the present generation and every single individual, to let the ethical become something whose discovery requires a prophet with a world-historical eye on world history—that is a rare, ingeniously comic invention. o fortunate nineteenth century! if no such prophet arises, we can all call it a day, for then no one knows what the ethical is.73

without doubt, this passage contains several allusions to grundtvig with words such as “prophet” and “world-historical eye.” nonetheless there are other things that must also be at work. For example, “the spirit of world history,” is not a grundtvigian term even if one perhaps might be able to believe it based on the many spirits one finds in grundtvig. therefore, the picture becomes confused. likewise the linking together of ethics and history is perhaps modeled on grundtvig, but the criticism does not hit its target since grundtvig ties ethics to his concept of conscience. a similar passage does not make it any easier: the observer world-historically catches a glimpse of the play of colors in the generations, just like a shoal of herring in the sea—the individual herring is not worth much. the observer stares numbly into the immense forest of the generations, and like someone who cannot see the forest for the trees, he sees only the forest, not the single tree. He hangs up

SKS 7, 51–2 / CUP1, 46. in the journals there is extensive source material (Pap. vi B 28–34), which was modeled on the Postscript and which contains many remarks of this kind. 72 Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 497–502. 73 SKS 7, 134 / CUP1, 144. 70 71

124

Anders Holm curtains systematically and uses people and nations for that purpose—individual human beings are nothing to him.74

also here one must ask if it is someone in particular who is alluded to: the observer (seer) or the systematician? the latter can hardly be modeled on grundtvig. against this background, it must certainly be granted that one can often speak in part of grundtvig being “the true target,” and that there is much that is true in stewart’s claim “that when Climacus talks of the world-historical, he has grundtvig in mind and not Hegel.”75 nonetheless one can expand the view on the basis of the aforementioned quotations and many similar ones, which can be seen from a number of examples in the registry, and say that the Postscript’s “true targets” are a mishmash of “the bustling ferment of the age.”76 Climacus’ nameless opponents in the Postscript appear to a large extent to be a fictive mishmash in the sense that a bit is taken from grundtvig, a bit from Hegel, and a bit from their disciples. perhaps for just this reason there are long stretches where the opponent in the Postscript remains unnamed: no one is named, and no one is forgotten. they are all a part of the contemporary spirit that Climacus wants to examine critically. taken together, a number of substantial points from 1835 run through the Postscript: for example, that there is something at the very heart of the view of the church, a thought of god’s presence in the church, where grundtvig, according to Climacus, is correct in having the scripture play a secondary role in the question of salvation. But also when the idea of this presence grounds the view that the church is the apostles’ church, it leads to an “introductory science” and an exchange of roles of the Bible and the Creed, etc. Here one could, as was done in the analysis from 1835, ask whether Climacus hits the target. the criticism of grundtvig in the Postscript may, however, be regarded as an expanded version of the criticism from 1835. this is not because there is any indication that Kierkegaard had read many new works by grundtvig since 1835, but primarily because Kierkegaard’s development in the intervening period seems to have sharpened his ability to see the consequences of regarding the world objectively or subjectively and has given him an understanding of the significance of the dialectics in the religious question. this makes it possible for him to work the concept of approximation into his own thought, and it creates a new and sharper side in the criticism of grundtvig, but it also raises new questions. For example, in grundtvig research one is often asked about the appropriateness of painting a picture of grundtvig based on Climacus’ distinction between subjective and objective, which ultimately takes its point of departure in a formation of concepts, which is entirely foreign to grundtvig’s theology. if the aforementioned response in the Dansk Kirketidende from 1846 is a response to Kierkegaard, one can ask whether the two have horizons at all which meet at this point. in addition, there is a consideration which offers itself: Climacus’ main problem is that he can follow grundtvig some of the way, namely, in that the church can 74 75 76

SKS 7, 147 / CUP1, 159. stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, p. 502. SKS 7, 9 / CUP1, 5.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

125

exist as an ahistorical presence in the individual’s ahistorical contemporaneity with Christ, but hereafter he cannot go along with, as he says, the idea that one can deduce from this that it is also apostolic. the problem is that grundtvig’s ecclesial view does not aim to deduce anything. the present and history belong together in him in that he imagines that faith and the historical church exist and belong together before one begins to speculate about whether they do. (Compare here the problem with the introductory science.) grundtvig, in other words, cannot think the present without the historical form which accompanies it, just as he likewise cannot think history without the present when he speaks of the church. as Climacus himself states, maybe the contrast to his concept of contemporaneity is not so great after all. In connection with this Climacus’ evaluation of baptism is difficult. He does not seem to be clear about what is at issue. thus it does not seem that he sees its connection to the communion, the Christian growth and the Creed as a divine promise, which is absolutely fundamental in the ecclesial view. something similar appears in his treatment of the living word, where one can ask Climacus if he is at all aware of how the living word is attached to the Holy spirit in grundtvig’s view of the church. This impression is confirmed by a body of extensive draft material to the Postscript,77 where there is a detailed attempt to determine whether the living word is an aesthetic, ethical-psychological, metaphysical, dogmatic, or historical-dogmatic discovery. the whole consideration ends in a satirical rapture that grundtvig’s living word is a “neoplatonic-gnosticizing mess,” which does not get any better due to the fact that “the profundity of the profound thought is made obvious by wrinkling the brow, by yodeling with the voice, by pushing up the skin on the forehead, by staring fixedly ahead, by sounding the deep F in the bass scale.”78 Here one can ask again whether Kierkegaard really has Climacus make an effort to understand what the “theory of the living word” really aims at, namely, that it is a theory of communication. in spite of all this, it must, however, be said that Kierkegaard with Climacus has a well-developed ability to discern the key tendencies in grundtvig and the grundtvigian way of thinking. they are often far more recognizable in him that in others from the same age or that which followed. it is clear that he knows grundtvig’s theology well. Nonetheless it is difficult to say whether Grundtvig read the criticism in the Postscript. the Postscript is not found among the books that he left behind in his library, and there is not much that indicates that Kierkegaard had been on his horizon until after Kierkegaard’s attack on the Church in 1855. several of the grundtvigians, however, reacted to the criticism, and on october 11, 1846 it also seems that grundtvig responded, without mentioning Kierkegaard by name, in an article in the Dansk Kirketidende. He presents the view that the claim that everyone is saved based on faith and not based on anything else is a completely obvious matter. people in the church have been aware of this right from the beginning, but due to this it does not follow that it is not a matter of indifference what one believes in. if the article was written with Kierkegaard as its target, the main point in grundtvig’s relation to Kierkegaard’s varied terminology seems to be that the subject is only a 77 78

Pap. vi B 29. Pap. vi B 29, p. 110 / CUP2, supplement, p. 24.

126

Anders Holm

true subject in and with the fact that it relates itself to a point of truth outside itself. the question is then how far it lies from the paradoxically determined subjectivity, which Climacus makes himself a spokesman for in the Postscript. D. The Grundtvigian Nonsense about Nationality: Kierkegaard’s Criticism 1847–51 after the Postscript the multitude of critical journal entries that Kierkegaard writes until his death shows that grundtvig never left his consciousness. at a very general level, it does not appear that Kierkegaard essentially changed his picture of grundtvig and his disciples from previously. However, one can say that Kierkegaard, as a result of his own changed thinking in the direction of imitation, theologically places himself in a different relation to grundtvig and the grundtvigian way of thinking than before. this is especially true in Kierkegaard’s last two years, but also from 1846–51, where it is set in opposition to the grundtvigians’ political engagement. especially in the course of the first year after the Postscript, Kierkegaard was in conflict several times with grundtvig’s ideas of awakening denmark to a spiritual struggle against the foreign powers. even two years before the introduction of the Constitution in 1849, grundtvig underscores his fear for what might happen with a new constitution. Specifically, Kierkegaard is irritated about statements to the effect that Danishness should be a condition to enter into Christianity: the grundtvigian nonsense about nationality is also a retrogression to paganism. it is unbelievable what foolishness delirious grundtvigian candidates are able to serve up. th. Fenger says, for example, that no one can be a true Christian except through nationality. And Christianity specifically wanted to do away with paganism’s deification of nationalities! But what does Fenger know about paganism; and as for Christianity, what else does he know but blustering around with grundtvigians!79

even if it is Fenger, one of the grundtvigians, who makes this claim, it is not too much to say that grundtvig himself could also make claims of a similar character. For example, he writes in the Dansk Kirketidende on october 17, 1847 that “the spiritual death of the danish popular character is the death of the danish people, which must be healed by a resurrection of the popular character before one can speak to and with the people about living Christianity without talking nonsense.”80 For Kierkegaard, this entire collective way of thinking is absurd and is, according to his view, related to an unhealthy mixing of grundtvigian chatter about the spirit of history, mythology, politics and prophecy. this shows with great clarity how little Kierkegaard thought he could use grundtvig’s ideas about the spirit of the people. there is no evidence that Kierkegaard during these years made any serious effort to understand grundtvig’s thoughts in this area in any depth. similarly, Kierkegaard is not impressed by the grundtvigians’ demand for tolerance. The first more detailed criticism turns up in 1848 in a journal entry. It SKS 20, 193, nB2:131 / JP 4, 4121. n.F.s. grundtvig, “Folkelighed og Christendom” in Dansk Kirketidende, october 17, 1847, column 43. 79 80

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

127

begins with Kierkegaard complaining that the grundtvigians imagine that they are the only true Christians. they do not do anything to instruct other people about Christianity. But it is infidelity towards what is Christian to keep Christianity for oneself, Kierkegaard objects. He continues: their talk about tolerance is rubbish. Christianity has never been tolerant in such a way that it has let others be pagans or be lost. no, it has been so intolerant that the apostle would rather lose his life in order to proclaim Christianity. intolerance, to be sure, is wanting to dominate others, but we forget that it certainly is not intolerance to be willing to suffer in order to help others.81

what Kierkegaard is saying here is, as such, neither for nor against freedom of religion and tolerance, but merely that the political dimension is indifferent in relation to what is decisive in Christianity. there is no connection between political determinations of freedom of faith and the individual’s faith, and therefore the struggle for tolerance distracts from what is actually the higher Christian goal: suffering to help others instead of merely wishing for freedom in itself, like the grundtvigians do, according to him. in this connection it is noteworthy that Kierkegaard several times in these years expresses a certain admiration for the fact that grundtvig gave up his position as pastor in 1826. In the first instance this fits well with the consequences of Christianity, which the individual must take upon himself, according to the late Kierkegaard. the problem is, however, that grundtvig has done this on a mistaken basis: in a journal entry from 1849 he writes: “grundtvig gave up his position because a false teaching was being disseminated by Clausen, and he was not fired: it was, however, something, a small awakening. But he should have given it up because the concept ‘life bread’ is not in harmony with Christianity: indeed, i am thankful, thus the commotion would have been something different.”82 time and again it awakens Kierkegaard’s irritation that the grundtvigians in this way threaten to leave the church without ever meaning it seriously. this is connected with the fact that ultimately grundtvig fits no better than anyone else into the concept of Christianity as suffering, which the late Kierkegaard points to as true Christianity. grundtvig, like mynster and all the others, represents the opposition, which is enjoyment. it is only this wish for a Christianity that enjoys life, Kierkegaard thinks, that is the background for the orthodox’s demand for tolerance. in 1849 he writes: “the orthodox do not suspect that this tolerance of others is the influence of the purely secular, that it stems from their not actually having the understanding or respect or courage for martyrdom or a proper faith in eternity but really prefer to have it good in this world.”83 Kierkegaard maintains this view until the end. in 1850 Kierkegaard formulates another side of the problem in the journals. the grundtvigians are opportunists in the political revolution and they are just as interested in secular power as everyone else. with reference to the events surrounding 1849, he thinks that the grundtvigians in “their action conform with worldliness. they are

81 82 83

SKS 20, 336, nB4:106 / JP 5, 6122. SKS 22, 259, nB12:189. SKS 22, 312, nB13:64 / JP 3, 3053.

128

Anders Holm

thus worshipers of the ballot and the majority, etc.”84 precisely those who imagine that they are the sole Christians are so far from the Christian as is conceivable, because they seek power just like every political party. in an entry from the same period Kierkegaard expands on this by criticizing the grundtvigians’ original church struggle, and the problem is almost the same as with grundtvig himself: “the grundtvigians argue thus: they claim that the others are not Christians and want now to get them out of their positions. But the whole concept of a state Church and the corresponding safe position is based on a deception that we are all Christians.”85 in the middle of all these complaints about the grundtvigians, it is interesting to notice, that Kierkegaard several times in these years states that “grundtvig ought nonetheless to be kept out.”86 this is in agreement with the fact that Kierkegaard in the years 1848–55 occasionally mentions in his journals that he prefers grundtvig to the grundtvigians and that he has met with grundtvig. even though it is impossible to determine precisely what is at issue here, there might be some indication that Kierkegaard had some kind of hidden agenda here. in any case he admits in his journals that he entirely consciously tried to be scheming. in one entry from 1848 he says straightforwardly that it had been his tactic to create a split in the coterie, that is, the formation of cliques, which was ravaging the kingdom. First he gives an account of his relation to mynster, Heiberg, and martensen, where he tries to “venerate mynster,” but he explains that everywhere there was a coterie he was careful “to except one, whom i venerate or call to account, merely to weaken the coterie. the most humorous is with grundtvig. He has been attacked for among other things the sake of the party— and thus i have been successful in keeping a kind of ecstatic interaction with him, which has embittered the party to a serious extent.”87 what is interesting here as in other places is that it is apparently more the grundtvigian coterie that Kierkegaard has difficulties with than Grundtvig himself. One sees this, for example, in 1849, when Kierkegaard made a disapproving statement about his brother peter Christian’s famous talk at roskilde Convent on october 30, 1849, where his brother compared him and H.l. martensen as examples of, respectively, sober-mindedness and ecstasy:88 it is strange: two days ago i spoke with grundtvig, he was quite mocking in his statements about peter on occasion of that lecture, “his pro and contra and mediating without himself doing anything.” However, from this it in no way follows that grundtvig and i are in agreement, perhaps grundtvig would even have been able to attack me instead of this nonsense mediating; for grundtvig has only an idea about my character, my industry and sacrifice.89

From this point in time there are several mysterious statements of this kind. For example, Kierkegaard’s most positive remark about grundtvig ever: SKS 23, 12, nB15:7. ibid. 86 SKS 23, 14, nB15:9. 87 SKS 21, 40, nB6:55. 88 later written and printed in the Dansk Kirketidende on december 16, 1849. the lecture made worse the already bad relation between the two brothers. 89 SKS 22, 409, nB14:108. 84 85

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

129

there are two kinds of education. the one is socratic—to question in order to starve out hollow knowledge. the other is the opposite: the learner asks the questions. grundtvig really made an invaluable observation when he said once in a conversation that instruction by questioning the child is wrong; it is the child who should be permitted to question.90

Although this remark, as mentioned, opens one’s eyes for an unresearched field, namely the relation between grundtvig’s and Kierkegaard’s thoughts on pedagogy, it is also interesting as a documentation for grundtvig’s and Kierkegaard’s personal contact with each other. all of these pieces of information render problematic any picture that suggests that grundtvig and Kierkegaard had nothing to do with one another. as we shall later see, this may concern the fact that Kierkegaard attempted to win grundtvig as an ally in his attack on the Church. it remains unclear what the goal of these meetings was, but they are confirmed from various portrayals from others. Grundtvig does not mention it. only one thing therefore seems quite probable: the meetings meant much more to Kierkegaard than to grundtvig. a number of old critical points also remerge in these years. similar to the picture of the boisterous grundtvig in the Postscript, one finds, for example, several comments on the current discussions about the hymn book in the 1840s. according to Kierkegaard, grundtvig’s hymns are all too noisy and bombastic in relation to the quiet melodies which Kierkegaard preferred.91 Kierkegaard likes better the hymnist Kingo, whose images were, however, also too violent for the church and were better for edifying reading at home, and for all eternity grundtvig will be unpleasant for him, he proclaims: “the deeper inward pain which in quiet sadness is reconciled with god is unknown to grundtvig, and precisely this is the hymn’s true tone. grundtvig is a jaunty yodeler, or a bellowing blacksmith.”92 it is correct that grundtvig could often come up into the higher altitudes (compare the previously discussed pentecostal hymn), but as a general observation this is of course all too one-sided. if anyone, grundtvig could also write quiet hymns, such as this favorite from 1844: sleep sweet little baby! lie peaceful and gentle! so sweetly asleep like bird in the woods Like flowers that bloom in the meadows! our father has said: stand, angels, on guard where my little ones lie a-sleeping!93

SKS 22, 200, nB12:103 / JP 1, 788. Kierkegaard owned the first volume of Sang-Værk til den Danske Kirke, 92 SKS 20, 290, nB4:6 / JP 5, 6097. 93 Grundtvigs Sang-Værk, vol. 4, p. 47: “Sov sødt Barnlille, / Lig rolig og stille, / Saa sødelig sov / Som Fuglen i Skov, / Som Blomsterne Blunde i Enge! / Gud Fader har sagt / Staa Engle paa Vagt, / hvor mine de Smaa er i Senge!” english translation in Tradition and Renewal, ed. by thodberg and thyssen, p. 190. 90 91

130

Anders Holm

something indicates that Kierkegaard liked grundtvig as a poet but not as a hymnist, for here it was a matter of stylistic seriousness. Kierkegaard, in opposition to grundtvig, liked the more rationalist Evangelical Christian Hymn Book. there is something noteworthy in Kierkegaard’s evaluations of grundtvig, however, especially since it is clear that Kierkegaard’s pointing to grundtvig’s noise and lack of sense for the individual’s religiosity automatically slips over into his judgment of grundtvig’s hymns. the same is true of Practice in Christianity, where the pseudonym anti-Climacus over long stretches seems to allude to grundtvig. as in Philosophical Fragments and the Postscript, it is stated that the paradox exists, and that therefore one cannot know about Christ of history. the eighteen centuries certainly show that Jesus Christ was a great man but never that he was the son of god. However, it is above all clear that Kierkegaard in the period 1847–51 to an increasing degree regards grundtvig and the grundtvigians as a part of the established order. this he writes in 1851: “in his younger days he represented the old, the oldfashioned, the hoary past, primitive, primeval Christianity; now in his old age he has spruced up to the latest thing out, a regular fashion-setter.”94 the mistake is that grundtvig falls on his knees before the development, Kierkegaard thinks. He thereby makes a compromise on Christianity. E. “He has never fought with Christian passion”: Kierkegaard’s Criticism 1852–55 In 1852 and 1853 one finds only a few brief insignificant remarks about Grundtvig. When Grundtvig reappears in 1854 one finds a number of scattered repetitions of old points. one can, for example, see that Kierkegaard continues to complain that grundtvig and the grundtvigians only relate objectively to Christianity. But in these last few years the criticism becomes part of Kierkegaard’s increasingly radical idea of the imitation of Christ and his critical position on the church. this is true, for example, in 1854, when Kierkegaard in several entries takes up again the idea from the Postscript that baptism for the grundtvigians corresponds to circumcision for the Jews. in fact there is much in the grundtvigians which reminds Kierkegaard of the Jews: the belief in being married well, in having numerous offspring, being god’s chosen people, etc. a year later he writes about grundtvig: g.’s Christianity is Judaism. the very kind of religion that Christ came to the world to end—precisely that is what G. presents and by contrast to the official Christianity has passed as being the Christianity of the new testament. what circumcision was for the Jews, Baptism, according to g., becomes for the Christians; in the same sense as Jews thought themselves to be the chosen people through circumcision, so also the Christians through Baptism.95

in other words, Kierkegaard does not think that the grundtvigians represent the ideal Christianity, which, for Kierkegaard, at this point in time is recognizable in its 94 95

SKS 24, 285, nB23:14 / JP 6, 6724. Pap. Xi–3 B 182, pp. 301–2 / M, supplement, p. 566.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

131

suffering in its encounter with the world. this quotation is taken from one of several drafts in a large group of journal entries from 1854–55, which collectively indicate that Kierkegaard was planning an attack on grundtvig and the grundtvigians in a future number of The Moment. in another entry from the same group Kierkegaard in connection with a retrospective look at the start of the attack on the Church at the beginning of 1854 states that he actually knew well that his attack would suit the grundtvigians well. it was only due to tactical reasons that he had not also attacked them, for if he did so, he would not be understood, he claims. But the grundtvigians are actually “Christianly, the most demoralized ones we have.”96 He therefore asserts that he actually knew well that the grundtvigians would soon respond since they would be the only ones who could not see that there was something to what he was saying. their mutual patting on the back is far too extensive for them to discover that they themselves are part of the miserable state of the church, Kierkegaard claims. But the grundtvigians are of course just as secular as all the others: “the only difference is this—and it is this difference that in my eyes places them so low—the difference is this, that at a very cheap price they pretend to be better than others.”97 they will with their call for a separation between church and state be interesting, and nonetheless remain in the church just like all the other pastors who need to earn their bread. therefore, Kierkegaard thinks that it must be them who come most of all in opposition to the cause that he is struggling for. while Bishop mynster’s Christianity is unripe fruit, the grundtvigian Christianity is tainted. all of this criticism corresponds to the fact that in the course of his last years Kierkegaard became more and more oriented toward a separation of state and church, but it also shows that he has no understanding for, and does not accept, grundtvig’s idea of the greatest possible freedom within the existing church, which at this time grundtvig was more than ever a spokesman for. throughout most of the rest of these entries, Kierkegaard has in his sights, as previously, the special apostolic self-consciousness among the grundtvigians. in any case, the whole thing remained in his desk drawer. late in the attack on the Church Kierkegaard mentions several times that from most of the articles which initiated the attack one could not know that he in the longer view wanted to take aim at the grundtvigians. Here one must agree with him. indeed, a single statement in the famous article about the witness to the truth might actually bring one to speculate about whether Kierkegaard had tried to bring grundtvig along into his attack on the Church in their previous meetings: now he is dead [sc. mynster]—god be praised that it could be put off as long as he was living! this was achieved, what toward the end i almost despaired of, but this was nevertheless achieved, what was my thought, my wish, which i also can remember once having said years ago to old Grundtvig: Bishop Mynster must first live out his life, be buried with full honors—this was achieved; he was indeed, if i dare say so, buried with full honors.98

96 97 98

Pap. Xi–3 B 188, p. 308 / M, supplement, p. 569. Pap. Xi–3 B 188, p. 309 / M, supplement, pp. 569–70. SV1 Xiv, 10 / M, 8.

Anders Holm

132

to this statement there is an interesting variant in the papers, which claims that Kierkegaard in his discussion with grundtvig is supposed to have added: “but in the same hour people are going home from the funeral i begin to prepare for the attack.”99 Kierkegaard presumably never found out that grundtvig six days later on december 24, 1854 reacted with a violent rejection of the mynster article in his sermon. on the other hand, he could later in the attack on the Church yet once again learn that his brother peter Christian had criticized him publicly at the roskilde Convent’s summer meeting on July 5. understandably, this was the occasion for a number of criticisms in the journals. Clearly what was most bitter was that he was not able to read the lecture but only hear news of it. He was annoyed by the fact that people would believe that peter Christian as his brother would know more about him than all the others. this was in no way the case, according to Kierkegaard, who did not think that his brother had understood him properly. in an article in The Moment no. 6 (from august 23, 1855), which in reality was Kierkegaard’s second largest public attack on grundtvig—and the last—Kierkegaard treats grundtvig side by side with mynster as another representative of the failing Church. First Bishop mynster’s Christianity is examined, and not surprisingly he does not pass the test. mynster is entirely on the side of the world and represents, when measured with Christian seriousness, “lukewarmness” and “indifferentism.”100 things do not become better with grundtvig. since after the church struggle he had attained freedom for himself and his congregation, he was indifferent to the deception that the state was claiming to be Christian. He did not fight any further against this. Had Kierkegaard heard grundtvig’s sermons at this time, for example, on palm sunday 1855, he would have found out that in fact this was not what grundtvig thought— not any longer in any case—but that he in fact was skeptical about the usefulness of talking about Christian states. this would, however, hardly have changed the next offensive charge in the article, namely, that grundtvig just wanted to live peacefully with his family and his congregation in this world and thus called peace “tolerance” when speaking to others. But according to Kierkegaard, at this point Christianity is and remains “the most intolerant of all religions, inasmuch as its true followers know no limit when it comes to sufferingly constraining others, constraining them by suffering their mistreatment and persecution.”101 measured by this standard, Kierkegaard is right that grundtvig can in fact hardly be said to have fought for Christianity, and in the same breath Kierkegaard then concludes about him: “he has never fought with Christian passion.”102 taken as a whole, this is a quite precise summation of one of the most important points in Kierkegaard’s criticism of Grundtvig. He lacks specifically, according to Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard’s special form of paradoxically determined passion in spite of all his struggles with the official Christianity. in The Moment no. 7 (from 30 august) Kierkegaard claims that in the entire clergy there is not a single honest pastor. everyone—even those who agreed with him but claim that there are exceptions (i.e., the grundtvigians)—are dishonest 99 100 101 102

Pap. Xi–3 B 216, 8, p. 358. SV1 Xiv, 221 / M, 207. SV1 Xiv, 222 / M, 208. ibid.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

133

and chiefly out for worldly gain. With this Kierkegaard refers to the fact that the grundtvigians in the course of the attack on the Church in fact agreed with him that there was something to his criticism of the state Church Christianity and habitual Christianity in the people’s Church, but they did not see that the criticism was also valid for themselves. therefore, he writes ironically: this presumably honest man may be so far from being an exception that he, only in a more refined way, is even worse than the others. Among the blind, as is known, the one-eyed man rules. if one aims to pass as something extraordinary at a cheap price, it is a sagacious scheme to enter into partnership with mediocrity, wretchedness, and dishonesty. By contrast, here one’s little bit of honesty looks splendid—ah, yes, unless this sagacious use of elucidation is a far more profound kind of dishonesty than the outright dishonesty of the others.103

we do not know to what extent Kierkegaard knew grundtvig’s reactions to the attack on the Church, which during Kierkegaard’s lifetime appeared primarily in grundtvig’s sermons, and it is so much in line with the Grundtvigians that is difficult to say whether these observations about the exception are especially modeled on grundtvig. this is, however, the last official reference to Grundtvig or the Grundtvigians, and the only one of Kierkegaard’s remarks about grundtvig which grundtvig ever felt personally attacked by, which can be seen in grundtvig’s comments on Kierkegaard’s attack on the Church in the years after Kierkegaard’s death. VII. Summing Up taken together it can be concluded on the basis of the places where grundtvig is mentioned in Kierkegaard’s authorship that grundtvig was anything but a person of indifference in Kierkegaard’s life. Kierkegaard had early on distanced himself from the uproar surrounding grundtvig’s person, just as he could not reconcile himself with the grundtvigian party, which his brother was a part of. politics and ballots about the truth draw attention away from the real issue, Kierkegaard thought. theologically, he was not able to accept grundtvig’s ecclesial view, just as he saw a great danger in grundtvig’s collective categories, history, the people and spirit, which lead to approximation and the introductory science. the main problem is that grundtvig thinks linearly and not dialectically, according to Kierkegaard. therefore, he remains outside what is really Christian. it hardly helped matters that he did not particularly like grundtvig personally. He was boisterously social, and bombastic in his writing. However, Kierkegaard’s evaluation of grundtvig and grundtvigian theology, which he knew intimately, never became unambiguously negative, just as the fact that he occasionally through the years both heard grundtvig preach and met with him, leaves us with a shimmering picture. Kierkegaard’s many comments on grundtvig show that Kierkegaard knew grundtvig and the grundtvigian universe well and that he in many ways was a good interpreter of grundtvig’s theology. as has been indicated above, one can, however, 103

SV1 Xiv, 270 / M, 256.

134

Anders Holm

raise questions about Kierkegaard’s interpretation, especially of grundtvig’s theology as an introductory science. similarly, he is not entirely clear about the living word, the concept of spirit and the motives in grundtvig’s struggle for freedom, which concerned many other things than just making room for himself in the Church, as Kierkegaard claimed. Correspondingly Kierkegaard is strikingly more industrious with his criticism than with his praise. as with others, he hides well what he must have felt of admiration for grundtvig. But now and again the voluntary admission slips out, which points towards the fact that Kierkegaard recognized some essential overlapping between the two authors. this conclusion is in agreement with what more recent research has shown, namely, that grundtvig and Kierkegaard in central areas are not so far apart as has been claimed traditionally. Appendix: Registry of the References to Grundtvig in Kierkegaard’s Writings the following registry lists the places where grundtvig and special grundtvigian issues have been noted in Kierkegaard’s writings in connection with the writing of this article. the list in no way pretends to be an exhaustive overview of all the places where grundtvig is mentioned in Kierkegaard. it is merely the result of a series of searches for grundtvig and key terms about him in the index to Søren Kierkegaard’s Papirer and in the electronic database to Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, which at the time of writing in 2007 was not yet complete. an exhaustive registry would be very difficult to make since Grundtvig appears very often in Kierkegaard’s writings in the form of allusions, which in the individual cases depend on the subjective estimate or guess of the reader. also in the present registry many such estimates have been made. this is true every time there appear in the column second from the right one or several words which make it probable that the allusion is to grundtvig or grundtvigian issues, even if grundtvig himself is not mentioned by name. when “grundtvig” is written in this column it is because grundtvig or the grundtvigian is mentioned directly in the given passage. since Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter is not complete the system is based on SV3 and thulstrup’s expanded edition of the Papirer. the dates of the entries follow those assigned by the editors of the Papirer. Translated by Jon Stewart

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

135

Registry of References to Grundtvig JP

reference/allusion

year

Pap. i a 56

578

the church, the creed

1835

i a 57

579

apostolic symbolum

1835

i a 58

580

the orthodox, apostolic church

1835

i a 59

5088

apostolic symbols

1835

i a 60

5089

grundtvig

1835

i a 61

5090

the living word and the written word

1835

i a 62

5091

grundtvig

1835

418

apostles’ Creed

1835

581

the church constitutes the Bible, the creed

1835

grundtvig

1836

Kierkegaard’s Journals and papers

i a 97

SKS

17, aa:16

i a 108

i a 202 i a 220

5156

grundtvig

1836

i a 307

4070

the concept of the church

1836

5181, p. 82

grundtvig

1836–37

grundtvig

1836

grundtvig

1832–33

5056

grundtvig

1832–33

5207

grundtvig

1837

grundtvig

1837

i a 328, p. 143

17, CC:12, p. 202

i B 6, p. 182

17, aa:21, p. 39

i C 7, p. 192 iC9 ii a 27

17, BB:47

ii a 182

17, dd:71

ii a 280

17, dd:161

1234

Barenecked, nordic spirit

1838

ii a 300

17, dd:175

5356

matchless

1838

ii a 481

18, ee:115

4096

the orthodox

1839

ii a 542

18, ee:165

5408

grundtvig

1839

Anders Holm

136 ii a 550

18, ee:171

2273

resounding

1839

ii a 810

18, ee:196

1583

the orthodox, parish freedom

1839

ii B 19, p. 301

17, dd:208, p. 293

the world-historical high school

1837

ii C 14, p. 326

19, not4:5, p. 130

apostolic Symbolum

1837

ii C 17

19, not4:6

grundtvig

1837

v a 38

18, JJ:231

1636

world-historical

1844

v a 58

18, JJ:251

5740

grundtvig

1844

v a 94

18, JJ:285

5752

grundtvig

1844

grundtvig

1844

eagle eye

1844

v B 97, 16

world-history

1844

v B 187, 8

grundtvig

1844

v B 1, 5–1, 9 v B 53, 35

2802

vi a 65

18, JJ:345

1034

world-historical social categories

1845

vi a 73

18, JJ:352

5819

grundtvig

1845

vi a 74

18, JJ:353

grundtvig

1845

vi a 85

18, JJ:363

genius, worldhistorical

1845

grundtvig

1844–45

grundtvig

1844–45

vi B 12

grundtvig

1844–45

vi B 21

grundtvig

1845

vi B 22

grundtvig

1845

vi B 28–34

grundtvig

1845

vi B 98, 14

grundtvig

1845

vi B 98, 17

deep

1845

vi B 182, p. 250

grundtvig

1845

grundtvig

1844–45

grundtvig

1844–45

grundtvig

1844–45

5645

vi B 8, 3 vi B 11

vi B 200–1

626

5760

vi B 220 vi B 231

5767

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant vi B 232

137

grundtvig

1844–45

5832, p. 290

grundtvig

1845

5933

grundtvig

1846

vii–1 B 135, 14

grundtvig

1845–46

vii–1 B 195, 375

grundtvig

1845–46

vi B 235, p. 293 vii–1 a 96

18, JJ:504

viii–1 a 24

20, nB:138

1350

the orthodox

1847

viii–1 a 125

20, nB2:18

1998

those who attack

1847

viii–1 a 245

20, nB2:131

4121

grundtvig

1847

viii–1 a 258

20, nB2:144

787

grundtvig

1847

viii–1 a 290

20, nB2:173

prophet, matchless

1847

viii–1 a 309

20, nB2:188

6055

grundtvig

1847

viii–1 a 434

20, nB3:32

3477

orthodoxy

1847

viii–1 a 436

20, nB3:34– 34a

184

orthodox, depth, matchless

1847

viii–1 a 487

20, nB4:6

6097

grundtvig

1847

viii–1 a 529

20, nB4:48

3050

orthodox, wonderful-glorious

1848

viii–1 a 530

20, nB4:49

814

profoundly and supremely beautiful

1848

viii–1 a 565

20, nB4:81

318

the historical, orthodoxy

1848

viii–1 a 566

20, nB4:82

3051

the orthodox

1848

viii–1 a 578

20, nB4:94

grundtvig

1848

viii–1 a 591

20, nB4:106

6122

grundtvig

1848

iX a 59

20, nB5:56

322

the truth of Christianity

1848

iX a 99

20, nB5:95

6176

grundtvig

1848

iX a 136

20, nB5:132

3052

the orthodox

1848

Xi a 205

21, nB6:54

6223

the orthodox

1848

iX a 206, p. 104

21, nB6:55. p. 40

grundtvig

1848

iX a 442

21, nB8:67

reformation, which sets the Bible aside

1848

209

Anders Holm

138 X–1 a 36

21, nB9:36

matchless future

1849

X–1 a 647

22, nB12:104

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 49

22, nB12:179

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 59

22, nB12:189

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 133

22, nB13:64

3053

the orthodox, tolerance

1849

X–2 a 275

22, nB14:97

6554

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 286

22, nB14:108

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 306–7

22, nB14:128

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 307

22, nB14:129

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 326

22, nB14:148

grundtvig

1849

X–2 a 335

23, nB15:7

grundtvig

1850

X–2 a 337

23, nB15:9

grundtvig

1850

X–2 a 338

23, nB15:10

6570

grundtvig

1850

X–2 a 356

23, nB15:27

4171

grundtvig

1850

X–2 a 389

23, nB15:59

3035

grundtvig

1850

X–2 a 554

23, nB16:83

3055

the orthodox

1850

X–3 a 304

23, nB20:47

6657

grundtvig

1850

X–3 a 651

23, nB22:37

grundtvig

1850

X–3 a 696

23, nB22:80

3686

grundtvig

1850

X–4 a 14

23, nB23:14

6724

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 36–7

23, nB23:36– 36a

6728–9

the old orthodox

1851

X–4 a 48

23, nB23:46

4818

the old orthodox, tolerance

1851

X–4 a 56

23, nB23:54

6733

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 57

23, nB23:55

6734

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 58

23, nB23:56

6735

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 66

23, nB23:64

4819

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 69

23, nB23:67

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 93

23, nB23:91

2960

grundtvig

1851

X–4 a 505

23, nB25:78

1646

grundtvig

1852

788

1860

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant X–4 a 552

25, nB26:6.a

X–4 a 662

25, nB26:109

139

the old orthodox

1852

the old orthodox, apostolic

1852

X–5 B 121, 5

grundtvig

1851

X–5 B 123

grundtvig

1851

X–6 B 64

grundtvig

1849

X–6 B 66–7

grundtvig

1849

3057

Xi–1 a 149

25, nB29:100

6876

grundtvig

1854

Xi–1 a 248

25, nB30: 67

5044

grundtvig

1854

Xi–1 a 524

26, nB32:23

the orthodox

1854

Xi–2 a 300, p. 309

grundtvig

1854

Xi–2 a 307, pp. 332–4

grundtvig

1854

Xi–2 a 311

6847

grundtvig

1854

Xi–2 a 334

6851

grundtvig

1854

Xi–2 a 408

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 142, p. 225

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 154–5

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 159, p. 265

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 179–80

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 182–91

grundtvig

1855

Xi–3 B 216, 8

grundtvig

1855

Anders Holm

140

Registry of Grundtvig in Kierkegaard’s Works SV3

SKS

KW

1, 263

1, 286

CI, 247

2, 381

2, 400

4, 286

grundtvig allusion

work

the idea of community

The Concept of Irony

EO1, 413

matchless, golden years

Either/Or

5, 313

EUD, 322

the history of past ages, chronicles

Four Edifying Discourses 1844

5, 217

4, 487

P, 24

the matchless discovery

Prefaces

6, 97

4, 304

PF, 107

ale-norse

Philosophical Fragments

6, 167

4, 381

CA, 78

mythology, falcon eye

The Concept of Anxiety

6, 190

4, 407

CA, 105

world-historical surveys

The Concept of Anxiety

6, 266

5, 410

TD, 31

the course of world history

Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions

7, 26–7

6, 30

SLW, 24

grundtvig

Stages on Life’s Way

7, 47

6, 50

SLW, 48

matchless discovery

Stages on Life’s Way

7, 92

6, 97

SLW, 101

spiritual eagle eye

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 14

6, 178

SLW, 190

to contemplate cyclopeanly with a deeply profound eye

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 75

6, 241

SLW, 259

yodeling saint, world history

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 182

6, 351

SLW, 378–9

to make mankind blissful, matchless discoveries, prophetic

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 199

6, 369

SLW, 398

scaldic vision, matchless

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 255

6, 427

SLW, 463

world-hisorical surveys

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 271

6, 443

SLW, 482

prophetic seers

Stages on Life’s Way

8, 278

6, 451

SLW, 490

matchless future

Stages on Life’s Way

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant 9, 19

7, 25

CUP1, 16

9, 34–46

7, 41–54

CUP1, 34–49

9, 56

7, 66

9, 62

141

world-historically concerned

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

grundtvig

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

CUP1, 64

world-historical nonsense

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

7, 72

CUP1, 71

matchless discovery

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 110–11

7, 124–6

CUP1, 133–4

prodigious spirit, world-historical

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 118–21

7, 133–5

CUP1, 142–6

world-historical, seer, prophet

Concluding Unscientific Postscrip

9, 122

7, 137

CUP1, 147

prophet with worldhistorical glance

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 128–30

7, 143–5

CUP1, 154–6

world-historical

Concluding Unscientific Postscrip

9, 132

7, 147

CUP1, 159

the shoal of world history

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 153

7, 169

CUP1, 184

world-historical

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 184

7, 201

CUP1, 221

that matchless future

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 195

7, 213

CUP1, 234

prophetic, matchless

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 207

7, 225

CUP1, 248

orthodoxy

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

9, 234

7, 254

CUP1, 279

world-historical surveys

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 47–8

7, 316

CUP1, 345

the development of spirit worldhistorically, shoal

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 77

7, 347

CUP1, 381

child baptism

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 129

7, 402

CUP1, 442

world-historical visions, matchless hawk eye

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

Anders Holm

142 10, 160

7, 434

CUP1, 479

a serious matter, few private little congregations...felt the need for a new hymnbook

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 162

7, 437

CUP1, 482

world-historical surveys

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 231

7, 511–12

CUP1, 562

superorthodox, seer with an eagle eye

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 233

7, 513

CUP1, 564

matchlessly spiritual seer

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 244

7, 525

CUP1, 577

theory of the church

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 247

7, 528

CUP1, 580

the naïve orthdox poet

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 258–67

7, 539–49

CUP1, 593–605

orthodox, orthodoxy, the sacrament of baptism, childish

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 270

7, 552

CUP1, 608

theory of the church

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 272

7, 553–4

CUP1, 610

the Creed, orthodoxy, baptism

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

10, 278

7, 560

CUP1, 617

matchless discoveries

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

12, 116

9, 119

WL, 116

matchless common enterprise

Works of Love

12, 355

9, 366

WL, 372

the people of love

Works of Love

12, 361

9, 372

WL, 379

let baptism be the security

Works of Love

13, 213–14

10, 234

CD, 226

history, giant steps

Christian Discourses

14, 82

8, 85

TA, 89

to summon a Holger danske

A Literary Review

14, 96

8, 100

TA, 105

prophecies

A Literary Review

history, proofs

Practice in Christianity

matchless lack of dialectic

Practice in Christianity

16, 36–41

PC, 26–31

16, 41

PC, 31

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

143

19, 13

M, 8

grundtvig

“Was Bishop Mynster a Truth-Witness...”

19, 197–201

M, 206–10

grundtvig

The Moment, no. 6

19, 245

M, 256

in a more refined way is even worse than the others

The Moment, no. 7

Bibliography I. Grundtvig’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library En liden Bibel-Krønike for Børn og Menigmand, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1814 (ASKB 185). Sang-Værk til den Danske Kirke, vol. 1, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1837 (ASKB 201). Christelige Prædikener eller Söndags-Bog, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1827–30 (ASKB 222–224). “Kirke-sag og Kirke-tidende,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 1, no. 1, 1845, columns 1–5 (ASKB 321–325). “Kirke-striden i engeland,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 8, 1845, columns 113– 25. “Kirken og skriften,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 26, 1846, columns 425–9. [review of] “Fremtids-Kirkens Forfatning. af Bunsen, preusisk minister i london— 1815,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 30, 1846, columns 489–500. “Kirke-troen og skole-læren,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 54, 1846, columns 17–26. “den Christelige Børnelærdom,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 71, 1847, columns 289–95. “om Kirkehistorien,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 76, 1847, columns 369–81. “om latinen ved theologisk attestats,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 87, 1847, columns 551–5. “Folkelighed og Christendom,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 3, no. 107, 1847, columns 33–44. “om Folkelighed og dr. rudelbach,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 3, no. 124, 1847, columns 313–23. “adgangen til ‘Herrens Bord’ og udskrivningen af ‘læse-, skrive- og regneskolen,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 209, 1849, columns 1–4. “samtaler om den Christelige Børnelærdom,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 215, 1849, columns 97–111. “psalmebogs-sagen,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 239, 1850, columns 505–15. “indledning til Kirkehistorien som guds-rigets speil,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, nos. 340–1, 1852, columns 225–50 and vol. 7, no. 342, 1852, columns 257–71. “moses og Jesus,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 369, 1852, columns 705–16. “ledetraad giennem Christen-Folkets Historie,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, nos. 426–7, 1853, columns 785–811.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

145

“mine Christelige grund-sætninger,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, nos. 426–7, 1853, columns 785–811. Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vols. 1–13, ed. by n.F.s. grundtvig and a.g. rudelbach, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandling 1825–28 (ASKB 346–351). Brage-Snak om Græske og Nordiske Myther og Oldsagn for Damer og Herrer, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1844 (ASKB 1548). Danske Ordsprog og Mundheld, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB 1549). “ludvig den Fjortende og hans tid,” in Dansk Læsebog for Mellemclasserne og de høiere Classer, part one, ed. and collected by Hans peter Holst, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837, pp. 175–9 (ASKB 1570). “natur og aabenbaring,” in Dansk Læsebog for Mellemclasserne og de høiere Classer, part one, pp. 322–8 (ASKB 1570). Nordens Mythologie eller Udsigt over Eddalæren for dannede Mænd der ei selv ere Mythologer, Copenhagen: paa Hofboghandler J.H. schubothe 1808 (ASKB 1948). Nordens Mythologi eller Sindbilled-Sprog historisk-poetisk udviklet og oplyst, 2nd revised ed., Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1832 (ASKB 1949). Udsigt over Verdens-Krøniken, fornemmelig i det Lutherske Tidsrum, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1817 (ASKB 1970). Bibelske Prædikener efter Tidens Tarv og Leilighed, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1816 (ASKB a i 69). Fest-Psalmer, Copenhagen: Boghandler iversen n.d. (ASKB a i 93). Om Nordens Historiske Forhold. Tale den 20de October 1843 i det Skandinaviske Selskab, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843 (ASKB u 44). Skov-Hornets Klang mellem Skamlings-Bankerne, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1844 (ASKB u 45). the minutes of speeches made by grundtvig: —— “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? (Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen d. 11 og 12 avril 1849),” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 188, 1849 [for the minutes of grundtvig’s speech], see columns 523–5; columns 543–4 and vol. 4, no. 190, 1849, columns 555–6; column 564. —— “om religionsfriheden udenfor den danske Folkekirke. et uddrag af rigsdagsforhandlingerne den 12. apr. samt 3. og 5. mai,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 193, 1849 [for the minutes of grundtvig’s speech], see columns 593–7 and columns 616–17. —— “Folketingets Forhandlinger om religions- og samvittighedsfrihed,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 268, 1850 [for the minutes of grundtvig’s speech], see columns, 990–6 and vol. 5, no. 269, 1850, columns 1001–3. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Grundtvig anonymous, “review of Grundtvig og Schleiermacher,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 189, 1849, columns 549–52 (ASKB 321–325).

146

Anders Holm

Brandt, Carl Joakim and r.th. Fenger (eds.), Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53 (ASKB 321–325). martensen, Hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 45, note; p. 269; p. 274, note; p. 446, note (ASKB 653). —— Den danske Folkekirkes Forfatningsspørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, p. 72 (ASKB 655). mynster, Jacob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 (vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 1, pp. 358–417 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1840, p. 135 (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1843, p. 92 (ASKB 698). Ørsted, anders sandøe, Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1851–52 (vols. 3–4, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 1, p. 141; pp. 357ff. (ASKB 1959–1960). rudelbach, andreas gottlob, Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1854, pp. 395ff.; pp. 398ff.; pp. 411–16; pp. 417ff.; pp. 459f.; pp. 509–10 (vol. 2, 1856) (ASKB 193). steffens, Henrich, Was ich erlebte. Aus der Erinnerung niedergeschrieben, vols. 1–10, Breslau: Josef max 1840–44, vol. 9, pp. 268–74; vol. 10, p. 199; p. 423 (ASKB 1834–1843). thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, pp. 135–6; pp. 140–1; p. 145; p. 153; pp. 157–8 (ASKB 970). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Grundtvig allen, e.l., “grundtvig and Kierkegaard,” The Congregational Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, 1946, pp. 205–12. augustinus, p., “grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” Menighedsbladet. Kirkeligt Samfunds Blad, vol. 21, no. 47, 1939, columns 765–8; vol. 21, no. 48, 1939, columns 779– 82. auken, svend, “det politiske hos Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” in Grundtvig— Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, ed. by Henrik wigh-poulsen, Hans grishauge, niels Jørgen Cappelørn, Joakim garff and Henning nielsen, Copenhagen: Forlaget vartov 2002, pp. 149–57. Bertelsen, otto, Dialogen mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990. —— Søren Kierkegaard og de første grundtvigianere, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1996. Billeskov Jansen, F.J., “grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” Kredsen, vol. 60, no. 2, 1994, pp. 7–31.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

147

—— “grundtvig og Kierkegaard” in his Grundtvig og Kierkegaard med ni andre åndshistoriske essays, Copenhagen: C.a reitzel 1996, pp. 47–76. Bjerg, svend, Gud først og sidst, Frederiksberg: anis 2002, pp. 161–8. Bukdahl, Jørgen, “martin a. Hansen og grundtvig,” Vartovbogen, 1965, pp. 96–116. —— “Kirkekamp og broderstrid. grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” in his Tordenvejret og gentagelsen, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1974, pp. 48–73 (published also in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9 1974, pp. 196–219). —— “grundtvig kontra Kierkegaard,” in his Om Søren Kierkegaard: Artikler i udvalg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981, pp. 95–9. Buss, Hinrich, “das menschliche und die existenz, grundtvig und Kierkegaard,” in Das Menschliche und das Christliche, ed. by Knud ejler lögstrup, Knud and götz Harbsmeier, munich: Chr. Kaiser verlag 1966 (Kontroverser um Kierkegaard und Grundtvig, vol. 1), pp. 81–93. Cappelørn, niels Jørgen, “gudbilledlighed og syndefald: aspekter af grundtvigs og Kierkegaards menneskesyn på baggrund af irenæus,” Grundtvig-Studier 2004, pp. 134–78. Christensen, m.g., “grundtvig and Kierkegaard,” Lutheran Quarterly, vol. 2, 1950, pp. 441–6. Christensen, villads, “grundtvig og søren Kierkegaard,” Meddelelser fra Søren Kierkegaard Selskabet, vol. 4, no. 2, 1953, pp. 11–12. Fenger, Henning, Kierkegaard, the Myths and Their Origins: Studies in the Kierkegaardian Papers and Letters, trans. by George C. Schoolfield, New Haven and london: yale university press 1980, p. 18; p. 33; p. 42; p. 54; p. 59; p. 78; p. 89; p. 92; p. 96; p. 145; p. 191; p. 215; p. 217. (originally as KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) Fich, a.g., “over Kierkegaard, grundtvig og nielsen,” Theologisk Tidsskrift, 1875, pp. 201–40; pp. 304–45. —— “martensen, Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Theologisk Tidsskrift, 1880, pp. 385– 416. garff, Joakim, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 2005, pp. 32–37; 318–25; 766–8. —— “ ‘Hvad har dog ikke den denne pen formået...’ om det æstetiske hos Kierkegaard,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, ed. by Henrik wigh-poulsen, Hans grishauge, niels Jørgen Cappelørn, Joakim garff, and Henning nielsen, Copenhagen: Forlaget vartov 2002, pp. 187–205. gregersen, niels Henrik, “selvets tilblivelse hos grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” in Religion. Tidsskrift for Religionslærerforeningen for Gymnasiet og HF, vol. 2 1993, pp. 12–25. —— “når der bliver mere ud det mindre: grundtvigs menneskesyn,” in Grundtvig— Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 11–30. grønbech, vilhelm, “Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” in his Kampen om Mennesket, Copenhagen: Jespersen og pios Forlag 1930, pp. 184–202. Hansen, niels Buur, “mennesket i verden og verden i mennesket,” in En Orm— en Gud. Om Mennesket i Verden, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1997, pp. 41–61.

148

Anders Holm

Harbsmeier, götz, “Kierkegaard und grundtvig,” in Das Menschliche und das Christliche, ed. by Knud ejler lögstrup and götz Harbsmeier, munich: Chr. Kaiser verlag 1966 (Kontroverser um Kierkegaard und Grundtvig, vol. 1), pp. 94–108. —— “Kierkegaard und grundtvig,” in Sören Kierkegaard, ed. by Heinz-Horst schrey, darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgeselleschaft 1971 (Wege der Forschung, vol. 179), pp. 385–99. —— Wer ist der Mensch?: Grundtvigs Beitrag zur humanen Existenz: Alternativen zu Kierkegaard, göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht 1972, see pp. 225–45. Harbsmeier, götz and Knud ejler løgstrup (eds.), Kontroverse um Kierkegaard und Grundtvig, munich: Chr. Kaiser verlag 1966. Helveg, F., “søren Kierkegård og efterslægten. (om papirerne og forholdet mellem Kierkegaard, grundtvig og Hamann),” Nordisk månedskrift for folklelig og kristelig oplysning, vol. 1, 1881, pp. 133–56; pp. 278–305. Henningsen, Bernd, Die Politik des Einzelnen. Studien zur Genese der skandinavischen Ziviltheologie. Ludvig Holberg, Søren Kierkegaard, N.F.S. Grundtvig, göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht 1977. Henriksen, aage, “teologi og erfaring. om søren Kierkegaard, grundtvig og goethe,” in Den eneste ene—og andre essays, viborg: gyldendal 2004, pp. 93–107. Hohlenberg, Johannes, “søren Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” in his Den ensommes vej, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1948, pp. 253–73. Holm, anders, “Historien i øjeblikket og øjeblikket i historien. grundtvig og Kierkegaard i indbyrdes belysning,” Vartovbogen, 2004, pp. 139–54. —— “the Contemporary grundtvig: an addition to Climacus’ Critique in Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” in Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2005, pp. 24–36. Holm, søren, Grundtvig und Kierkegaard. Parallellen und Kontraste, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag and tübingen: Katzmann verlag 1956. —— “Holberg, grundtvig, Kierkegaard, drei dänische denker,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie, vol. 7, 1965, pp. 49–61. Holmgaard, otto, Extacitus, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967. Høirup, Henning, “grundtvig and Kierkegaard. their views of the Church,” Theology Today, vol. 12, no. 3, 1955, pp. 329–49 (published also in GrundtvigStudier, 1956, pp. 7–20). Jensen, Henrik Fibæk, “grundtvigs erkendelsesteori,” in Grundtvig-Studier, 1979, 29–65. Jelved, marianne, “den enkelte og fællesskabet,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 159–66. Jensen, l.C., “martensen, s. Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Kirken og Hjemmet. Kristeligt Ugeblad, vol. 9, no. 27, 1908, pp. 418–25. Jensen, søren, “Kierkegaard i den teologiske tradition. de danske forudsætninger for søren Kierkegaards teologiske anskuelse,” in Denne slyngelagtige Eftertid, ed. by Finn Frandsen and ole morsing, Århus: slagmarks skyttegravsserie 1995, 399–430.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

149

Jones, llewellyn, “Kierkegaard or grundtvig?” Christian Century, vol. 69, no. 20, 1952, pp. 588–9. Jungersen, Frederik, Dansk Protestantisme ved S. Kjerkegård, N.F.S. Grundtvig og R. Nielsen. Ti Foredrag holdt på Borchs Kollegium i Foråret 1873, Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1873. Klein, ernst Ferdinand, “zwei dänen, Kierkegaard und grundtvig,” in his Zeitbilder aus der Kirchengeschichte für die christliche Gemeinde, vols. 1–4, Berlin: ackerverlag 1911–27, see vol. 4 (Das neunzehnte Jahrhundert). Koch, Carl, “grundtvig og søren Kierkegaard,” in his Grundtvigske Toner. Studier og Betragtninger, Copenhagen: det schønbergske Forlag 1925, pp. 7–37. Kofoed, niels, Grundtræk af en europæisk poetik—religion og æstetik i romantik og modernisme, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1994, pp. 111–58. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950, see p. 18; p. 78; p. 89; pp. 143–4; p. 148; p. 153. Kühnhold, Christa, N.F.S. Grundtvigs und Sören Kierkegaards Sprachauffassung, stuttgart: Hans-dieter Heinz akademischer verlag 1986 (Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik, vol. 172), pp. 47–87. — “grundtvig og Kierkegaard som grundlæggere af en moderne social bevidsthed,” Grundtvig-Studier, 1988, 81–95. Kvist, Jens, Menneske—og så? en kritisk redegørelse for antropologien hos henholdsvis Søren Kierkegaard og N.F.S. Grundtvig, Århus: teoltryk 1977. Kvist, morten, “n.F.s. grundtvig’s Conception of Historical Christianity. an introduction to the relationship Between Kierkegaard and grundtvig,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2005, pp. 37–52. lacoste, Jean-yves, “Kierkegaard face aux théologies de son temps,” in Kierkegaard, ed. by Jean Brun, paris: eurographic 1981 (special number of Obliques), pp. 103–7. lehmann, ed, “deux réformateurs du protestantisme danois: sören Kierkegaard et grundtvig,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, vol. 11, no. 6, 1931, pp. 499–505. lindhardt, p.g., Grundtvig, Copenhagen: gad 1964, pp. 108–16. —— “Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Dansk Udsyn, 1957, pp. 147–61. —— Konfrontation: Grundtvigs prædikener i kirkeåret 1845–55 på baggrund af Kierkegaards angreb på den danske kirke og den “officielle” kristendom, Copenhagen: akademisk Forlag 1974. —— Dansk kirkekundskab, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1979, pp. 111–41. —— “Konfrontation. duellen mellem grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” Aalborg Stiftsbog, 1982, pp. 11–26. —— Regeneration, Copenhagen: akademisk Forlag 1977. —— “tiden 1849–1901,” in Den danske kirkes historie, vols. 1–8, ed. by Hal Koch and Bjørn Kornerup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950–66, vol. 7 (1958), pp. 43–68. lund, Herman, “søren Kierkegaard [and n.F.s. grundtvig],” Le Temoignage. Journal de l’Eglise de la Confession d’Augsbourg, 1877. malantschuk, gregor, “grundtvig og Kierkegaard: et grundtema i Jørgen Bukdahl: tordenvejret og gentagelsen,” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 38, 1975, pp. 139–43.

150

Anders Holm

max [lybeck sørensen], “indre mission er en Krydsning af grundtvig og søren Kierkegaard,” Kristeligt Dagblad, January 1, 1942. michelsen, william, “grundtvigs stilling i dansk åndsliv med særligt henblik på søren Kierkegaard,” in Grundtvig og Grundtvigianismen i nyt lys, ed. by Christian thodberg and anders pontoppidan thyssen, aarhus: anis 1983, pp. 289–96. —— “om grundtvig, Kierkegaard og det moderne gennembrud,” GrundtvigStudier, 1988, pp. 96–9. —— “om grundtvigs tidsopfattelse” Grundtvig-Studier, 1976, pp. 42–51. nauman, st. elmo H., The Social Philosophies of Søren Kierkegaard and Nikolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig, ph.d. thesis, Boston university graduate school, Boston, massachussetts 1969. paulsen, anna, “Kontroverse um grundtvig und Kierkegaard,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 6, 1968, pp. 150–9. pedersen, Kim arne, “ ‘sjæle og Kroppe i tusindtal...’ om sammenhængen mellem menneskesyn og kirkesyn hos grundtvig, undersøgt med baggrund i Kierkegaards forfatterskab,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 59–89. plekon, michael, “Kierkegaard, the Church and theology of golden-age denmark,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 34, no. 2, 1983, pp. 245–66. reich, ebbe Kløvedahl, “modsigelsen—en grundtvigsk diagnose,” in Grundtvig— Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 31–42. roed, susan, “vejen fra kaos til kosmos—tre eks.: grundtvig, Kierkegaard og Blixen,” in Pamves træ—om krise, kunst og religiøsitet, aarhus: Forlaget philosophia 1988, 53–74. saxe, poul, Danmarks Kirkehistorie, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag, arnold Busck 1962, pp. 74–6. scharling, C. Henrik, “søren Kierkegaard og grundtvig. tvende Foredrag holdte ved universitetet i Christiania,” Dansk Tidsskrift for Kirke- og Folkeliv, Litteratur og Kunst, vol. 1, 1870, pp. 3–28. —— “grundtvig. s. Kierkegaard. H. martensen,” in his Menneskehed og Christendom i deres historiske Udvikling: en Fremstilling af Historiens Philosophi, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gad 1872–74, vol. 2, pp. 274–308. skjoldager, emanuel, Hvorfor blev Søren Kierkegaard ikke Grundtvigianer, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1977 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets populære Skrifter, vol. 16). roar skovmann, Danmarks historie, vols. 1–14, ed. by John danstrup and Hal Koch, Copenhagen: politikens Forlag 1962–66, vol. 11, pp. 395–412. søltoft, pia, “For gud er alt muligt,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 43–57. sorensen, Jacquelynn, Kierkegaard, Grundtvig, and Danish Literature in the Plains, ph.d. thesis, the university of nebraska-lincoln, lincoln, nebraska 1984. steffensen, steffen, “grundtvig und Kierkegaard,” Ausblick, vol. 1, nos. 4–5, 1950, pp. 49–50. stewart, Jon, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel. Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 497–502. thaning, Kaj, “grundtvig og Kierkegaard,” in Dansk Udsyn, 1957, pp. 348–68.

Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig: The Matchless Giant

151

—— “das menschliche und das Christliche bei n.F.s. grundtvig,” in Das Menschliche und das Christliche, ed. by Knud ejler lögstrup and götz Harbsmeier, munich: Chr. Kaiser verlag 1966 (Kontroverser um Kierkegaard und Grundtvig, vol. 1), pp. 50–80. —— Menneske først—Grundtvigs opgør med sig selv, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1963, pp. 658–90. thulstrup, niels, Commentary on Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by robert J. widenmann, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1984, see pp. 130–1. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard. Afsluttende uvidenskabelige Efterskrift udgivet med Indledning og Kommentar af Niels Thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1962.) —— “grundtvig” in Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1984 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 13), pp. 198–226. toftdahl, Helmuth, “debatten om grundtvig og Kierkegaard: en kritisk gennemgang,” Grundtvig-Studier, 1969, pp. 47–86. —— Kierkegaard først—og Grundtvig så, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag, arnold Busck 1969. —— “grundtvig og søren Kierkegaard,” Grundtvig-Studier, 1973, pp. 30–49. tudvad, peter, “Kierkegaard mod Konstitutionen—‘medicin mod Frihedsruus,’ ” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 133–48. vind, ole, Grundtvigs historiefilosofi, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1999, pp. 484–92. —— “Kierkegaards kritik,” in his Grundtvigs historiefilosofi, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1999, pp. 484–92. weltzer, Carl, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gad 1936. —— Grundtvig og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1952. werner, sven erik, “tålt ophold—om autonommusik, grundtvig og Kierkegaard i et nutidsperspektiv,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 207–22. wigh-poulsen, Henrik, “melankoli og profeti. om grundvig, lundbye og guldalderkunsten,” in Grundtvig—Kierkegaard. En samtale på høje tid, pp. 167–86.

Hans Frederik Helveg: a receptive grundtvigian søren Jensen

I. Helveg’s Life and Authorship in the course of the 1830s there arose at the university of erlangen a theological school called “the erlangen school” or what we refer to today as erlangen theology. a number of young professors who all had a positive relation to the revivalist movement were appointed in a short period of time to the theological Faculty at the university of erlangen, and although they did not work together directly, their theology bore such a unique stamp that we can with justice refer to it as a school. at this time a young dane, Hans Frederik Helveg (1816–1901) studied in Erlangen and was strongly influenced by these young Erlangen theologians.1 He was witness to the Erlangen School from the very beginning, and was the first person to bring erlangen theology to denmark. He was stamped by it for life, and he gave it his own special form. at the same time he was also inspired by n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872), and to a large extent by søren Kierkegaard. Helveg was born in Bordesholm in the dukedom of Holstein in 1816.2 it was only by chance that he was born there since his father was a doctor in Bordesholm for only a few years. as early as 1817 he received a more important position in odense on Funen, where Helveg grew up. Both of his parents came from Husum in the dukedom of schleswig, and german was the language that they used at home. when the national movement began to take hold, Helveg’s father took the side of the schleswig-Holsteners, while his mother was oriented towards the danish side. it was his father’s wish that his son become a jurist, and in the last year of his time The main figures here were Hermann Olshausen (1796–1839), Adolph von Harleß (1806–78) and especially J.C.K. von Hofmann (1810–77), who was Privatdozent while Helveg was in erlangen, being made professor only in 1842. 2 Frederik nielsen, “Hans Friedrich Helveg,” in Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for Tidsrummet 1537–1814, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 7, pp. 315–17; a.J. rud, “Hans Friedrich (after 1864: Frederik) Helveg,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–27, ed. by povl engelstoft, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1933–44, vol. 10, pp. 34–6, and p.g. lindhardt, “Hans Friedrich (efter 1864: Frederik) Helveg,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–16, ed. by sv. Cedergreen Bech, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979–84, vol. 6, p. 235. an overview of Helveg’s life and authorship can be found in the introduction to søren Jensen, H.F. Helvegs forfatterskab—en bibliografi, Copenhagen: institut for Kirkehistorie 1987, pp. 7–22. 1

154

Søren Jensen

at the secondary school he was sent to the domskole in schleswig in order to be prepare for admission to the university of Kiel, where he subsequently studied law for two years (1833–35). However, he decided to change his field of study and take up theology. when Helveg chose to study theology in erlangen and not merely to continue his studies in Kiel, it was due to the fact that—while he was preparing for his studies in theology—he became excited about Hermann olshausen’s (1796– 1839) commentary on the new testament, and wanted to seek inspiration from the author himself. this led to a year-and-a-half of intensive study from the fall of 1836 to the spring of 1838. when Helveg already at this point in time returned from erlangen, it was due to the fact that his father had become ill and unable to work, and he could not support his son financially. Helveg’s father suffered during some periods from mental illness and died in 1864 at the Hospital for the mentally ill at roskilde. His father’s illness in 1838 thus prevented Helveg from continuing his studies in germany—in Berlin or in erlangen—as he had planned, and Helveg had to seek a position as private house tutor, before he, in the fall of 1839, took the theological qualifying examination at gottorp Castle in schleswig. upon his return home to denmark in 1838 Helveg had some theological problems with the apostles’ Creed, but through the study of grundtvig’s writings he found the solution to these problems. alongside erlangen theology, the inspiration from grundtvig was decisive for Helveg and for the development of his theology. it is from this time that Helveg can be counted as a grundtvigian. when he was ultimately unsuccessful in continuing with an academic career in germany, he decided to become a pastor, and in 1842 he became curate in two small parishes in eastern Jutland, near Kolding, under Frederik Hammerich (1809–77) who was then pastor there. Hammerich was also a grundtvigian and in 1859 became professor in church history at the University of Copenhagen, thus becoming the first grundtvigian to be appointed at the theological Faculty. Helveg had not entirely given up making an academic career, and in the summer of 1843 he submitted a treatise, The Dialectic of the Law [Lovens Dialektik], for defense for the theological degree of licentiate. the treatise was, however, rejected, among other things, due to reasons of formalia, namely, it was written in danish and not in latin. when Hammerich, due to illness, had to resign, Helveg also became unemployed. in may 1844 he therefore went to Copenhagen. there he wished to get to know grundtvig personally. He participated actively in social life, becoming, for example, a member of the student society and of the scandinavian society. He gave a series of lectures, where he argued for schleswig’s cause and declared himself to be “ejderdansk,” that is, someone who thinks that the eider river should be the southern border of denmark. in the course of a short time he also began to give sermons in the churches of Copenhagen. The first time he did so was at the morning service on July 14 in the Church of the Holy spirit, and he continued preaching regularly in several

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

155

Copenhagen churches until he left the city at the end of 1846. most often he preached at the evening service in vartov.3 Helveg’s teacher from the Katedralskole in odense Christian Kalkar (1803–86) had in the interim become parish pastor in gladsaxe near Copenhagen, and he invited Helveg to participate in a translation of the Bible with commentaries, where every single text was also to be accompanied by an introduction. the work was complete in the course of a very few years, which was to a large part due to Helveg’s efforts. Kierkegaard owned a copy of this private Bible translation,4 and in a single place in his journals he refers to something that Helveg had written in one of the introductions. due to his engagement in student scandinavianism and because he was a grundtvigian, Helveg was, in 1846, appointed as principal of rødding Højskole. in the short time since its founding in november 1844, the school had already had two principals. The first left because he received an offer of a better position and the second, the school’s founder, Christian Flor (1792–1875) had to give up since he was not able to manage the special tasks that were involved in being the school principal. Helveg, by contrast, functioned well in relation to both the students and the other teachers.5 in 1847 Helveg also became a collaborator in the danish newspaper in Haderslev, Danne-Virke, where he wrote articles with political and other content. after the death of King Christian viii (1786–1848) and with the prospect of a free constitution— which was introduced in the Kingdom in 1849—the schleswig-Holsteners made a rebellion in the dukedom, and the three-years war (1848–50) broke out. this meant that Rødding Højskole had to close, and Helveg was named field pastor in the summer of 1848. He was, among other things, attached to general olaf rye’s (1791–1849) brigade. when after the war there was a lack of danish-leaning pastors in schleswig, Helveg decided to give up his position as principal, and he became pastor in Frue Kirke in Haderslev. in the following 14 years he was pastor there, and through a series of books and articles he worked out his own special theology. His first main work, Prophecies or God in History, appeared during his time in Haderslev.6 in the introduction he gives an account of his theological position. He places himself in a determinate theological tradition, the Johnnine, of which he also gives when Helveg departed from Copenhagen in october 1846, he had preached eight times in vartov, while he had preached ten times in four other churches in the capital. 4 Hans Frederik Helveg, Biblen eller den hellige Skrift, paany oversat af Grundtexten og ledsaget med Indledninger og oplysende Anmærkninger. Udgivet i forbindelse med Pastor Helweg, Prof. Hermannsen og Candidat Levinsen af Chr. H. Kalkar, Sognepræst til Gladsaxe og Herløv Menigheder, vols. 1.1, 1.2, and vol. 2, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & søn and p.g. philipsen 1847 (ASKB 8–10). 5 søren Jensen, “Frederik grundtvig og rødding Højskole,” in Vartovbogen, Copenhagen: vartov 1995, pp. 86–114. 6 Hans Frederik Helveg, Spaadommene eller Gud i Historien, vols. 1–3, vol. 1, Pagten med Slægtens tre Fædre. Bibelsk Studie. Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1855; vol. 2, Sinai og Zion. Bibelsk Studie, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1859, vol. 3, Daabens Pagt. Bibelsk Studie, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1862. 3

156

Søren Jensen

a historical presentation at the end of the book.7 at no point does he make any attempt to hide his dependence on the erlangen school and especially on J.C.K. von Hofmann (1810–77); similarly, grundtvig is presented as the second of his two “standard-bearers.”8 Helveg thus attaches himself to a theological tradition which he sees represented by grundtvig and Hofmann. Hofmann’s revival and renewal of the typology and his new formulation of a redemption-historical theology, along with grundtvig’s historically oriented theology inspired him to create what he designated as “prophetic theology.”9 Helveg himself also mentions that Kierkegaard was an inspiration. the literary dimension plays a large role in Helveg’s theology, which can be seen, among other things, in his studies of metaphors,10 and in the way in which he worked with typology. in that context he mentioned the concept of repetition as full of significance.11 one can say that Helveg lets faith be the premise upon which he does theology, which is to a large extent in harmony with what Kierkegaard called the appropriation in one’s personal life. it must be clear “for the person who wants to portray the history of god’s Kingdom that this history can only be written by the Kingdom’s own citizens.”12 what Helveg above all is thinking of here is that the theologian must be engaged in theology and cannot place himself outside it and observe it. Kierkegaard became a source of inspiration for Helveg with the demand for an existential engagement of this kind. in connection with the prussian–austrian occupation in 1864, Helveg was dismissed, and he moved with his family to Copenhagen, where he began the publication of a political weekly, Danmark.13 after having to close his journal, Helveg lived in Copenhagen for two years without any fixed employment. Only towards the end of 1867 did he receive a post as pastor in Købelev on the island of lolland.14 He lived in this rather isolated place until his death in 1901. in the period from 1886 to 1899 he was archdeacon. in the chapter “stadet,” which gives an “orienterende Blik i den christelige Kundskabs Historie” “Fra Jakob og tertullian” “indtil schelling og grundtvig.” Helveg, Spaadommene eller Gud i Historien, vol. 1, pp. 457–612. 8 an expression that Helveg uses to refer to Hofmann and grundtvig in several places in his book about his authorship; see Hans Frederik Helveg, Livstanke og Livsgerning. En Redegørelse, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1892, p. 3; p. 34; p. 52; pp. 64–5; p. 87. 9 Helveg, Spaadommene eller Gud i Historien, vol. 1, pp. 24ff. 10 Hans Frederik Helveg, Bibelen som Billedbog (Samlet Aftryk af Dansk Kirketidende 1849–51 med Efterskrift), Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1856; Parabel og Offer eller Natursymbolik, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1856. see leif grane, “det teologiske Fakultet 1830–1925,” in Københavns Universitet 1479–1979, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad, vol. 5, p. 415. 11 Helveg, Spaadommene eller Gud i Historien, vol. 1, p. 21. see Hans Frederik Helveg, Livstanke og Livsgerning. En Redegørelse, p. 57. 12 Helveg, Spaadommene eller Gud i Historien, vol. 1, p. 35. 13 Danmark, politisk Ugeblad. Redigeret af Fr. Helveg. Danskhed. Frihed. Oplysning. At the end of 1864 the paper appeared for the first time with a few trial issues and continued to appear during the entirety of 1865. it had to stop publication due to various reasons. 14 søren Jensen, “en præst kommer til lolland,” in Dansk Kirkeliv 1988–1989, Århus: Forlaget aros 1988, pp. 51–62. 7

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

157

in Købelev he could continue his authorship. the next two main works appeared while he was living there. The first of these was Free Congregation and Apostle School.15 as the subtitle says, this is both a church-historical and cultural-historical presentation of the second century when the spiritual conditions for Christianity’s adaptation and situation in the first period are treated from Helveg’s theological point of view. His last main work is entitled Israel’s Spiritual Life in the Postexilic Time.16 This book fills out the period between the Old and the New Testament, and might almost be called a presentation of the history of the ancient Jews; it contains all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha known at the time. this work is unique in danish theological literature. II. Helveg and Kierkegaard A. The Journals as mentioned, Helveg began to preach in the Copenhagen churches shortly after his arrival in the city in 1844. Kierkegaard must have been present at one of the services, since in a journal entry written at the end of the year 1844, he mentions Helveg. the entry is concerned with wanting “to have certainty about spirit,” which leads to a commentary on the influence of the external expression on the spiritual content: the outer as argument for the inner. as a whole, the entry is about grundtvig, but it ends by associating this with an experience with Helveg: He intends to produce such great effects by speaking. oh! yes, especially in the direction of obscurity. incidentally, perhaps he could also produce an effect by standing on his head. in the end, sweating, furrowing his brow, striking his forehead, smiling selfconfidently, swooning visibly under the power of the spirit, etc., become proof of the truth of the teaching. it is just like when Helveg leaped from his pulpit in honor of Christianity and probably wanted to demonstrate its truth by the fact that he could leap a foot into the air.17

what concrete occasion Kierkegaard refers to cannot be determined. it is most probable that he was present at a service in the Church of the Holy spirit, trinity Hans Frederik Helveg, Frimenighed og Apostelskole. Kirke- og kultur-historisk skildring, navnlig af andet hundredår efter Kristus, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: Karls schønberg 1878– 82. see søren Jensen, “Frimenighed og apostelskole. Frederik Helveg som oldkirkehistoriker,” in Kirken af levende Stene, Frederiksberg: Forlaget anis 1994, pp. 79–107. 16 Hans Frederik Helveg, Israels åndsliv i hjemfærdstiden, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Boghandel 1889–90. 17 SKS 18, 230, JJ:285 / KJN 2, 211. in a diary entry by Frater taciturnus in “ ‘guilty?’/ ‘not guilty?’ ” from Stages on Life’s Way, where Kierkegaard with a strong allusion to grundtvig, satirizes a person who “contemplates the course of life and of existence and world history” and “looks at it, and see, it is so wonderful.” such a person regards Frater taciturnus as a blockhead, and adds “just like the preacher who does an entrechat in the pulpit in honor of Christianity.” SKS 6, 241 / SLW, 259. the commentary to this passage (SKS K6, 255–6) refers probably correctly to the aforementioned passage in the Journal JJ. 15

158

Søren Jensen

Church or Frue Kirke, where Helveg preached; but it might also be that he went to the evening service at vartov.18 Kierkegaard was thus clear about who Helveg was shortly after he had come to the city. Kierkegaard had some form of respect for Helveg, since we know with certainty that he later heard him preach at the morning service in the Church of the Holy spirit on the 4th sunday in advent on december 24, 1848. at this time Helveg had leave from the brigade for some weeks and was staying with his family in Copenhagen; thus he had the opportunity to preach a few times, and one of these times Kierkegaard heard him and noted in his journal: when John the Baptist’s father did not want to believe [in the margin: when he doubted] the proclamation that he would bear a son of old age, he became mute as a penalty: thus doubt should have it, right at the moment it should be said to it: shut up. moreover, i continued to hear pastor Helveg today, attentive to something that he also touched on, namely, if John the Baptist’s father had spoken, then no one would have believed him, but precisely the fact that he became mute had to happen in order to awaken the attention for and confidence in the fact that something extraordinary had taken place with him.19

as was common, Helveg did not write out his sermons but wrote down only a few key words and a few sentences. However, he worked out this sermon and published it together with the sermon that he gave the week before in our savior’s Church in a book with the title John the Baptist.20 With Kierkegaard’s sense for the significance of silence it is not strange that he fastens upon a remark about this in the sermon, and, note well, comments upon positively. in the printed sermon, however, Helveg does not say directly that no one would have believed zacharias, if he had spoken, which—as implied—does not rule out that Helveg in the freely delivered sermon had explained zacharias’ silence in this way.21 But as early as 1845 Kierkegaard had read an article that Helveg had written, since he has Johannes Climacus refer to it in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript.22 in the commentary to JJ:285 (SKS K18, 368 / KJN 2, 532–3) it is stated that Helveg only preached at vartov, but he also preached at the Church of the Holy spirit and trinity Church, where it is more probable that Kierkegaard heard him. the commentators also write that Helveg preached at vartov in march and april 1844, but this is not correct. He only came to Copenhagen in may 1844. 19 SKS 21, 172, nB8:82. 20 Hans Frederik Helveg, Døberen Johannes. To Prædikener, Copenhagen: F.H. eibes Forlag 1849. the mentioned sermon is printed on pp. 22–42. 21 “when zacharias stepped out of the temple, he was mute, although it was not yet known what the angel had said. However, it was known, in a solemn manner and in the presence of many witnesses...John himself made no sign, but thus his birth was accompanied by signs that caused that the entire people’s attention was directed to him and people asked each other: what will become of this child?” see Helveg, Døberen Johannes: To Prædikener, pp. 29f. 22 in general, for Helveg’s relation to Kierkegaard, see søren Jensen, “Frederik Helveg og søren Kierkegaard—en grundtvigianer mellem kierkegaard-recension og -reception,” 18

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

159

B. The postscript The first section in the second part of the chapter is entitled “Something about Lessing.” in the second chapter of this section, “possible and actual theses by lessing,” Climacus discusses the conditions for religious communication and argues that the communication can only take place in an indirect manner.23 By contrast, “objective thinking” imagines that religious truth can be communicated directly, while “the subjective thinker” knows that he exists in his thinking. as existing, the subjective thinker is in becoming. He has therefore not reached the conclusion and does not have a “result” outside himself. He has it inside himself. the impossibility of the direct form of communication leads to the concept of “double reflection.” The form of communication must, of course, be in agreement with what is to be communicated and which, in its lack of result and its becoming, is both a communication and not a communication. therefore, a special dialectic of communication must be used, and since it is not a matter of communicating something finished, an objective prose cannot be used, and one must use an aesthetic medium. the communication is art, or as Climacus also formulates it, it is deceit. against this background, Climacus finds it appropriate to use a pair of Hegelian concepts: the negative and the positive. the positive is tied to objective thinking, while the negative is inseparable from subjective thinking: “in the domain of thinking, the positive can be classed in the following categories: sensate certainty, historical knowledge, speculative result. But this positive is precisely the untrue.”24 in other words, it is the negative thinkers who have a chance to communicate something that concerns existence. in opposition to the positive, the negative is constantly in movement: the negative thinkers therefore always have the advantage that they have something positive, namely this, that they are aware of the negative; the positive thinkers have nothing whatever, for they are deluded. precisely because the negative is present in existence and present everywhere (because being there, existence, is continually in the process of becoming), the only deliverance from it is to become continually aware of it. By being positively secured the subject is indeed fooled.25

one can thus say that in Climacus’ view it is something positive to belong to “the negative thinkers”! so much for the background understanding of what Climacus writes about Helveg. in the passage in question Climacus mentions “world history and astronomy” as something which concerns the positive, objective thinker, but with an unmistakable reference to, respectively, Heiberg and grundtvig, he writes:

Fønix, vol. 15, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–21 and tonny aagaard olesen, “Frederik Helveg og hans fremstilling af Kierkegaard. introduktion til ‘Hegelianismen i danmark,’ ” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, pp. 305–29. 23 SKS 7, 72ff. / CUP1, 70ff. 24 SKS 7, 80–1 / CUP1, 81. 25 SKS 7, 81 / CUP1, 81–2.

160

Søren Jensen in a superb article in Fyenske Tidsskrift, i see that socrates is supposed to have been somewhat ironic. it is really high time that this be said, and i am now in a position of daring to appeal to that article when i assume something similar. when socrates specifically wants to emphasize the infinite, one of the forms his irony takes is that he initially speaks like a madman. Just as existence is sly, so also is his speech, perhaps (i say “perhaps,” since i am not nearly as wise a man as that positive writer in Fyenske Tidsskrift) so as to prevent gaining a moved and believing listener who would positively appropriate the statement about the negativity of existence.26

the author of the treatise is called “the positive writer.” in the manuscript to the Postscript Kierkegaard originally wrote, “pastor Helveg,” but he apparently changed his mind and wrote instead “the positive writer.”27 thus there can be no doubt that this was a treatise by Helveg that he had in mind. Helveg had written two treatises in For Literatur og Kritik, the periodical from Funen. the one had Faust as its theme. Here he speaks of irony, but socrates is not mentioned.28 the other piece is entitled “orestes and oedipus or the Collision,” and it illustrates the ethical collision with the help of with aeschylus’ Orestia trilogy and sophocles’ Oedipus. Here socrates is mentioned, but there is not a word about irony.29 what Kierkegaard has in mind with his reference to Helveg is not easy to determine. the Postscript was written very quickly, and he could hardly have checked all the many references in the work; so it is possible that he merely had a sense that Helveg had written that socrates was somewhat ironic. in any case, this is an imprecise reference. in the treatise on “the collision” the law in its various forms plays a large role. not least of all natural law is juxtaposed to positive law, in order to illustrate the ethical dilemma. Helveg remarks that his treatise possibly has the “appearance of being somewhat torn loose” and explains this by saying that “it is an independent episode of a larger whole.”30 there cannot be much doubt that the larger whole is Helveg’s rejected treatise The Dialectic of the Law. if this is the case, then it concerns material that Helveg by that time had already been working with for many years. in other words, it is probable that Helveg had written the better part of this treatise before Fear and Trembling appeared, a work which to a great extent deals with the same issue. why Kierkegaard chose to omit Helveg’s name and call him “the positive writer” is likewise not entirely clear. to lump Helveg together with the objective thinkers, whom Climacus polemicizes against is certainly not fair. Helveg’s theological view and disposition recall much more that of the subjective thinker. Helveg never commented on the fact that he was discussed in the Postscript. this might well have

SKS 7, 83 / CUP1, 83. Pap. vi B 98:25 / CUP2, 34. 28 Hans Frederik Helveg, “Faustsagnet og Faustdigtningen,” For Literatur og Kritik. Et Fjerdingaarsskrift, ed. by l. Helweg, odense: J. milo 1844, pp. 1–49 and pp. 109–65. on mephistopheles as ironist, see p. 110. 29 Hans Frederik Helveg, “orest og Ødip eller Collisionen,” For Literatur og Kritik, 1845, pp. 18–69. on socrates, see pp. 54–60. 30 ibid., p. 18. 26 27

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

161

been due to him not being aware of the fact that Climacus, with “the positive writer” of the excellent “treatise in the Fyenske Tidsskrift,” was referring to him. Kierkegaard considered mentioning Helveg a second time in the Postscript. in the first chapter of the second section, he considered adding a note to the passage where Climacus intends to consider world history not in concreto but in abstracto. He writes that it is important to be able to determine the boundary between the individual and the world historical. although it should not be, the boundary is often blurred. without this certainty it is confusing to read a historical account. it cannot be determined if a king is included because he is king or a hermit because he is a meaningful individual. one does not know “whether there is any boundary (or whether it speculatively runs together so that all are included and world history is the history of individuals), whether the boundary is accidental (relative merely to what one knows now), whether the boundary perhaps is dialectically arbitrary, relative only to what the honored systematizing professor has read most recently or must include because of his literary in-law affinities.”31 in a preliminary draft there followed a note that was ultimately omitted: thus without a doubt prof. rasmus nielsen, in the role of a systematic per degn and Imprimatur, would find a place for Dean Tryde, who also is indeed said to know his business systematically and equally well both by reading and by rote, who is said to have the merit of bringing the system into families, and finally has the remarkable pecularity by which he differs from actual Hegelians in assuming that world history has had its amusement park season extended so that it does not end before prof. rasmus nielsen. —By contrast, Cand. Barfoed would perhaps find a place for Pastor Helveg, who also as chapellan pro persona ought to be taken along.32

Frederik Barfod (1811–96) was a grundtvigian and a historical author. when the footnote grounds Helveg’s place in world history with the fact that he is chaplain pro persona, one might believe that Kierkegaard owned or at least had seen Helveg’s first book from 1844, Christian Life, a little collection of sermons, where it is noted on the title page that he is “Chaplin p.p.”33 this was thus a title that Helveg could not have used after Hammerich’s departure in spring 1844. when Kierkegaard, apparently without any particular reason, mentions Helveg, it is due to the fact that he lumps him together with the grundtvigians. this is, of course, not wrong, but by the same token it is not right. it is important that we do not forget that Kierkegaard ultimately omitted this note. as mentioned, Kierkegaard discusses Helveg after having read his Bible translation. it was in the summer of 1850 when he, in his journal, fastens upon a remark that Helveg had made in his introduction to the Book of ezra in the Bible translation. the note has the heading, “the Jews.” 31 SKS 7, 143–4 / CUP1, 154.the note was intended to follow this, that is, on p. 144, line 1. see SKS K7, 191. 32 Pap. vi B 40, 7. Cf. the printed manuscript Pap. vi B 98, 34, where Helveg’s name is omitted in the first instance, before Kierkegaard ultimately chose to omit the note entirely. 33 Fr. Helweg, Det christelige Liv fremstillet i 8 Prædikener og een Vielsestale holdne over de foreskrevne Texter fra 4–10 Søndag efter Trinitatis, odense: milo’s Forlag 1844.

162

Søren Jensen it is also noteworthy, as Helveg observes in his introduction to the translation of the Book of ezra (in Kalkar’s Bible), that whereas other peoples moved farther and farther away from the faith of their fathers the older they got, until it almost became a joke to them, with the Jews it has been just the reverse. whereas they ran after false gods in their early period, the religion which they rejected in their younger days became the comfort of their old age. But then, again, they became so prejudiced and set in the old that Christianity had to become an obstacle to them just for that reason. the old culminates in such a way that it has to cut off its own development.34

once again we see that Kierkegaard can be positively affected by something that Helveg said or wrote. C. the Book on adler after the publication of the Postscript and after having given “a First and last explanation,” in which he publicly acknowledged that he was responsible for the pseudonymous writings, Kierkegaard thought that he was done with his authorship, and he considered seeking a position as pastor.35 Among other things, the conflict with The Corsair caused him to change his mind. One should not believe that he fled from “martyrdom.” to continue his authorship as before and to write under pseudonyms, however, did not seem possible. By contrast, there was nothing standing in the way of him writing edifying books in his own name as he had done before. ultimately this was the way he went. But before doing so, he considered taking up another genre, a genre which he had used earlier: criticism. He wrote thus in February 1846: “what if i decided from now on to do in the form of criticism what little writing i can allow myself? i’d then commit what i have to say to reviews in which my ideas developed out of some book or other, so that they could also be found in the book.”36 The first book he had written was a review of Only a Fiddler by Hans Christian andersen (1805–75),37 and in fact the first book that he published after the Postscript was also a review.38 at this time he began writing what would become Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits,39 and a little later in the summer of 1846 he again began writing a review, namely, the so-called Book on Adler.40 Formally speaking, it was a “literary review”41 of four books that adler published in June 1846. adolph peter adler (1812–69) knew Kierkegaard from their days as schoolboys. He had become cand. theol. in 1836, and after a study trip returned home as a SKS 23, 374, nB19:69 and 69.a. / JP 2, 2220. see, for example, SKS 18, 278, JJ:415 / KJN 2, 257. 36 SKS 18, 279, JJ:419 / KJN 2, 258. 37 Kierkegaard, From the Papers of One Still Living, see SKS 1, 7–57 / EPW, 53–102. 38 Kierkegaard, Two Ages. The Age of Revolution and the Present Age. A Literary Review, see SKS 8, 7–106 / TA, 1–112. this work appeared on march 30, 1846. 39 SKS 8, 107–431 / UD, 1–341. The preface to the first section was originally dated May 5, 1846, but was omitted in the printed book. since the date is Kierkegaard’s birthday, one must regard it with a degree of suspicion. 40 Pap. vii–2 B 235. 41 Pap. vii–2 B 242. 34 35

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

163

Hegelian.42 this is clear from his master’s thesis from 1840, which Kierkegaard read, and a series of lectures on Hegel’s objective logic.43 adler became a pastor in 1841 and after an experience, which he himself interpreted as a revelation of Jesus, he published, in 1843, Some Sermons, in the preface to which he gives an account of the event.44 He claimed to have heard the savior speaking, and the latter had dictated to him a new doctrine, among other things, about the origin of “the evil spirit,” and had at the same time commanded him to abandon his philosophical work. apparently it did not occur to adler that the publication of the claim that he had had a revelation could have consequences for his post in the state Church. But he was suspended and ultimately in 1845 dismissed. after some years he settled in Copenhagen, where he continued his theological authorship through the publication of a series of short works, which continued to appear up until 10 years before his death. without understanding the way that the authorities had handled the matter or the reason for his dismissal, he ended up an alcoholic—for a while he was declared incapable of managing his affairs—and died in 1869. on the same day in June of 1846 adler published four short works, which Kierkegaard bought and which became the occasion for him to write a review of the type he mentioned in his journal. as stated, it became The Book on Adler, which must really be called a book since it is far too long to be a review. even if Kierkegaard reworked it many times, only a small part of it was ever published in his lifetime.45 only when the Posthumous Papers appeared, was the book published as a whole.46 although Kierkegaard goes through adler’s various writings, the work is in no way a personal attack on his confused use of fundamental Christian concepts or his lack of argumentative stringency, but rather Kierkegaard used adler as an “epigram” to illustrate the religious confusion, which, in his opinion, was in general dominant at the time. Kierkegaard holds adler to the claim that he has had a revelation—which he thus does not exclude the possibility of—and gives a series of conditions for how he would then have to comport himself. Kierkegaard, however, was not the only one to be interested in adler and his authorship. so also was Helveg, and already on July 19—more than a month after the books had appeared—he published a review of “mag. adler’s recent writings.”47 on adler and his philosophical authorship, see Carl Henrik Koch, En flue på Hegels udødelige næse eller Om Adolph Peter Adler og om Søren Kierkegaards forhold til ham, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990. 43 Pap. iii a 1. adolph peter adler, Den isolerede Subjectivitet i dens vigtigste Skikkelser. Første Deel, Copenhagen: Berlingske Bogtrykkeri 1840 and adler, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842. 44 adolph peter adler, Nogle Prædikener, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843, pp. 3–4. 45 “the difference between a genius and an apostle,” the second of the Two EthicalReligious Essays (1849), where all references to adler have been removed. see SKS 11, 95– 111 / WA, 91–108. 46 Af Søren Kierkegaards Efterladte Papirer. 1844–46, ed. by H.p. Barfod. Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1872, pp. 451–704. 47 Hans Frederik Helveg, “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 45, 1846, columns 729–40 and no. 46, 1846, columns 745–55. 42

164

Søren Jensen

Helveg had previously reviewed both adler’s lectures on logic and his sermons, and so he had a good background for reviewing the four new books.48 as soon as Helveg’s review appeared, Kierkegaard read it. it irritated him that there was someone else who had taken up adler’s books, but not only this: Helveg began his review by comparing adler with Kierkegaard: Around the same time as a writer, whose significance for our literature until now dares to be more sensed than understood, appeared with complete disdain, indeed, mockery of every system that gives explanations and is entwined in objectivity, but who has the deepest recognition of faith, as infinite interestedness, as passion, as love, and who lets every movement in the soul find a verbal expression, and lets the expression become the dialectic’s ball, there appeared a second, no less idiosyncratic, but according to the nature of the matter, less justly judged and in general less appreciated author, who not merely professed to build on the objective revelation but even claimed to have a revelation in the light of which the first one could be correctly understood; he is a writer who kept all reflection at a distance, lost from sight all reference to the contemporary age and the surroundings, and with a fire, a passion, which otherwise is expressed only in warmer times or in warmer places, pursued what had become precious to his mind, entirely forgetting that he previously, as a Hegelian logician, had sucked in the air of life of the time to the fullest.49

Helveg of course had no idea that Kierkegaard had begun a longer review or, more correctly, an analysis of the age which he illustrated with adler. that Helveg was aware that there could be a connection between adler and Kierkegaard also irritated Kierkegaard, and this connection was not something that occurred to other contemporaries. it offended Kierkegaard that Helveg wrote that he and adler began to write at the same time, since adler began after the pseudonyms, and it was therefore not so strange that Helveg could find a linguistic similarity between them. In September 1846, that is, after the book was finished, Kierkegaard writes in his journal about the style of the pseudonyms and the lyrical concentration that he had put in the prose of the pseudonyms, and about adler’s imitation of this style: In this respect all the pseudonyms have an unqualified linguistic value in having cultivated prose lyrically. it is clear that adler, too, has learned something from them, but what his flattering reviewer says in the Kirketidende, that he began just about the same time as the pseudonyms, is not true, for he began after them, and the style of his last four works is markedly different from that of his sermons, where he had not as yet been so strongly influenced. On the other hand, what his reviewer says about the presence of passages in adler (four last books) being thoroughly reminiscent of the pseudonyms is true, but i see nothing meritorious in that, neither in copying another nor

Helveg, “a.p. adler, mag. art. populære Foredrag over Hegels objective logik. Kjøbenhavn 1842. Hos universitets-Boghandler reitzel. 173 sider. 8,” For Literatur og Kritik, odense: milo 1843, pp. 267–78; Helveg, “nogle prædikener af ad. pet. adler, m.a. Kjøbenhavn 1843,” Fædrelandet, no. 1345, september 3, 1843, columns, 10781–4. 49 Hans Frederik Helveg, “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 45, 1846, column 729. 48

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

165

in forgetting that by having had a revelation of his own one has entirely different things to think about than language exercises.50

in the introduction to The Book on Adler Kierkegaard mentions Helveg’s review and writes that adler’s writings have been “highly (and stupidly) praised” in it,51 which corresponds to the expression: Adler’s “flattering reviewer.” Nonetheless it is an unfair remark and an imprecise expression. in actuality, Helveg’s position on adler was on the essential points in agreement with Kierkegaard’s, and his complaints quite similar. Kierkegaard held adler to the claim that he had a premise, that is, that he had a sign for everything that he had written, namely, the revelation that he claimed to have had. Helveg shows a similar disposition. Both Helveg and Kierkegaard emphasized that one could not rule out that adler had had a revelation, and that one therefore could not simply reject adler and call him insane. they both manifested the good critic’s disposition, and emphasized first the author’s strength and merits, in order thereafter to begin with the criticism.52 although Kierkegaard calls Helveg a “flattering critic,” he is no less critical of Adler than Kierkegaard. He refers to his review of Some Sermons, where he had given “a sketch of [adler’s] dogmatic course of thought.”53 Here he had accused adler of “creating a new heresy,” a dualistic “system,” whose doctrine revealed “the fundamental mistake and also the connection with panlogism.” apart from the fact that Helveg here points out adler’s Hegelian influence, the judgment of the truth value of what Adler writes cannot be called particularly flattering. in the preface of Some Sermons adler had, among other things, written that he, against the background of “a superficial knowledge of the Bible [had] undertaken to explain the Creation and Christianity.”54 this remark impressed both Helveg and Kierkegaard unfavorably. Helveg thought that adler ought “to learn to connect the Church’s faith with the teachings of the Bible,” before he rejected his previous system with the goal of building up a new one. if he were to do so, then he would

SKS 20, 42–3, nB:39 / JP 5, 5939. Cf. “draft to The Book on Adler” Pap. vii–2 B 241, p. 15. 51 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 27. 52 Kierkegaard writes that if adler had not had the premise he had, then one would really have been able to learn something from his writings. But it demands that one, in opposition to adler, have “dialectical clarity about the spheres and the whole.” see Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 172. this is what Kierkegaard had, and one dares to assume that the colorcoded system with which he underlined adler’s books, which are preserved in the Kierkegaard archive, disclose when he “really learned one thing or another from them” (ibid., p. 172). with an ordinary pencil Kierkegaard underlined, wrote an x, vertical lines and a cross! But he also used a blue pencil. the underlinings with a blue pencil seem to mark the places where adler gives the impression of an acceptable thought. see Jensen, “Frederik Helveg og søren Kierkegaard,” pp. 20–1, note 37. 53 Hans Frederik Helveg, “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 45, 1846, column 731. 54 adler, Nogle Prædikener, p. 3. 50

166

Søren Jensen

assure himself that “we do not need any new revelation.”55 Helveg maintains this criticism in the review of the later works. like Kierkegaard, Helveg emphasizes adler’s engagement and writes that it is his “wish to hear such an enlivening voice in the service of the truth.”56 in adler Kierkegaard could wish for a “fellow worker, however, note well, on his own account,” that is, for a critic of the same shortcomings of the age, which he himself saw.57 Kierkegaard was sailing “with the same ship,” but had a “separate cabin.” with the comparison of adler and Kierkegaard, Helveg points out, that the two—in spite of their individual special characters—can be said to represent a criticism of “the system” from the perspective of a rehabilitation of faith. adler drew up a rebellion against his own Hegelianism with its point of departure in a form of experience of faith, and Kierkegaard polemicized against the notion that one had gone beyond faith without coming to it.58 Kierkegaard used the expression about himself that he wanted to be a “ministering critic” for adler.59 this expression can directly be used about Helveg, but this does not mean that he appears as Adler’s flattering reviewer. It is not surprising that Kierkegaard was polemical towards his opponents, but he also expressed his dislike and his irritation when people supported him or even said the same thing as he did. the latter is the case with Helveg—in this context. The Book on Adler did not appear in its full length in Kierkegaard’s lifetime. there were certainly many reasons for this. Clearly, it was not a genuine book review. Just like A Literary Review of Two Ages, The Book on Adler was far too long to be a book review. The personal discussion of Adler might ultimately have been a significant factor, but it is not impossible that Helveg’s review in the Dansk Kirketidende might also have played a role in this context and caused Kierkegaard to consider other publication possibilities, only to put aside most of the manuscript. D. The Attack on the Church Helveg took up the relation between adler and Kierkegaard again nine years later in an article entitled, “a parallel between two prophets.”60 the occasion was Kierkegaard’s attack on the Church and Christendom. in other words, this was a contribution to the controversy surrounding the “kirkestorm.” Helveg warns against dismissing too quickly figures like Adler and Kierkegaard, and rejecting summarily their causes with the argument that they were insane. this was Helveg’s position as Hans Frederik Helveg, “nogle prædikener af ad. pet. adler, m.a. Kjøbenhavn 1843,” Fædrelandet, no. 1345, 1843, column 10784. 56 ibid. 57 Pap. vii–2 B 235 p. 29. Cf. p. 86: “i am not without familiarity of what is brewing in the age; I am flowing along, albeit in a separate cabin. When I heard [that Adler had had a revelation] i thought: either...this is the man whom we need, the chosen one, who in divine originalness has a new source to refreshen the slack soil of Christianity, or it is contempt.” 58 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 29, p. 27. 59 Pap. vii–2 B 235 p. 26 / BA, 26. 60 Hans Frederik Helveg, “en parallel mellem to profeter,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 40, 1855, columns 641–51 and Dannevirke, no. 231, 1855. 55

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

167

early as 1846, and at that time it was interpreted by adler to mean that Helveg “was in agreement with him.”61 this was not the case. He had merely drawn attention to the fact that adler’s view, in itself, was logically consistent, but he did not at the same time claim that it was a “course of thought in agreement with the truth.”62 similarly, in the present situation it would be entirely absurd to reject Kierkegaard with the argument that he was insane. with a reference to Hegel, Helveg says that “we in the interim should all have learned...that the existing order is not the rational.”63 in any case, there should and must be room for diverging opinions. the parallel between adler and Kierkegaard in 1855 concerned the relation to the existing order, to the ecclesial authorities and the official preaching of Christianity. the difference was that adler had appeared positively and was taken with the truth he believed should be communicated, while Kierkegaard directed a negative attack against the existing in order to reveal what is false in preaching. For Helveg, one had to go past this conflict with the existing order and take one’s beginning in what was for both figures a “prophetic character,” in order to point out “a sustained parallel between them.”64 it is characteristic for Helveg that he does not use the concept “prophet” in a metaphorical sense, due to the fact that adler had his revelation and “dr. Kierkegaard has an enduring inspiration.”65 they both claim to be mediators of a divine cause. Helveg emphasizes that with the present comparison he is not speaking of the author of the pseudonyms but exclusively of the Kierkegaard of the attack on the Church.66 with a quotation from The Moment, no. 7, where Kierkegaard says that “god,” “the omnipotent one” is with him and that he is “used,” that is, functions as a tool in the service of god, Helveg gives evidence for his claim.67 it is not Helveg’s intention to denounce adler or Kierkegaard, but he merely attempts to rehabilitate the prophetic position and appearance, and to warn against judging “the prophet” too quickly. He closes by writing: “what this parallel is supposed to draw attention to is that the present age obtains a measuring rod, which has not been in use for a long time, and even Israel had a difficult time dealing with it, the measuring rod for prophets, namely, those who claim to be prophets. the world shouts ‘madness’! but the congregation judges: either the voice of God or the devil.”68 in the days of the attack on the Church there were good reasons to advise people to have a sober mind on this point. all too many people ignored Kierkegaard’s criticism by calling him a madman. in Helveg’s eyes, this was both unacceptable and unreasonable. i have mentioned the consistency in the position that Kierkegaard and Helveg, purely critically, held towards adler, and it should be recalled that Helveg did not have the faintest idea that Kierkegaard had an interest in adler and was writing 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Helveg, “en parallel mellem to profeter,” column 644. ibid. ibid. ibid., column 645. ibid., column 647. ibid., column 646. ibid., columns 650–1. Cf. SV1 Xiv, 259 / M, 245. ibid., columns 650–1.

168

Søren Jensen

about him. also in his second contribution to the discussion surrounding the attack on the Church from 1855, “Hegelianism in denmark,”69 the parallels jump out at the reader. Helveg writes here of adler that he, with his revelation, “has come closer to Christianity than he was before.”70 Kierkegaard similarly draws attention to the fact that Adler only came into conflict with the church authorities when he “came to be somewhat closer to being a Christian.”71 there is almost a consistency of language here. Both authors fasten upon adler’s use of the concept “genius” in connection with the experience that he has had. in Helveg one reads: “one is in doubt whether his revelation is meant as revelation or as an inspiration of the genius, the breakthrough of genius.”72 this is precisely the slippage which, for Kierkegaard, characterizes adler’s conceptual confusion, and again and again brings him to insist that adler should have revoked his revelation and instead reformulated “an intended apostolic existence to one of being a genius.”73 in other words, if Helveg as reviewer can be called “flattering,” then Kierkegaard can be given the same designation. in the articles that Helveg published during and after the attack on the Church, his position towards Kierkegaard and his cause can to a large extent be said to be similar to the position he had held towards Adler. The first of these appeared in Dansk Kirketidende on July 1, 1855, and was entitled, “dr. s. Kierkegaard’s and the Bible’s description of Christian Faith.”74 the article was originally a lecture, which Helveg had given for his colleagues at a convent in Haderslev. two of the pastors in the town were influenced by Kierkegaard: H.P. Kofoed-Hansen (1813–93) knew Kierkegaard personally, and Johannes Fibiger (1821–97) knew the authorship. moreover, the editor of the city’s danish newspaper, Danne-Virke, peter Christian Koch (1807–80), where Helveg was collaborator, was strongly taken by the attack on the Church and published articles and accounts of the controversy in the newspaper. also a schoolteacher in the town, mogens abraham sommer (1829–1901), who was also a lay preacher and at the same time strongly inspired by Kierkegaard, behaved in a provocative manner towards the pastors.75 there was therefore a need for a sober account of what Kierkegaard’s cause was. it was due to the fact that Helveg was so well oriented in Kierkegaard’s authorship that he was able to keep a cool head and give a sober account of his views.

Hans Frederik Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 51, 1855, columns 825–37 and no. 52, 1855, columns 841–52. Helveg’s article is reprinted and published with textual corrections and explanatory notes by tonny aagaard olesen in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, pp. 330–55. 70 Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 52, 1855, column 846. 71 Pap. vii–2 B 235, p. 219. 72 Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 52, 1855, column 846. 73 Pap. vii–2 B 235 p. 26 and pp. 104ff. Cf. Cap. iii, pp. 93–176. 74 Hans Frederik Helveg, “dr. s. Kierkegaards og Bibelens Beskrivelse af den christne tro,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 29, 1845, columns 457–72. 75 emil larsen, Urovækkeren Mogens Abraham Sommer med særligt henblik på haderslevtiden, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads 1963, p. 83; pp. 124–32. 69

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

169

Helveg begins his lecture by systematizing Kierkegaard’s concept of faith in order to place it in a historical context in theology where it belongs, and in order to make more precise points that deviate from “the common view.” Helveg characterizes Kierkegaard’s concept of faith “in a threefold manner: (1) faith is inwardness, appropriation; (2) faith is and grounds a demand, contains one thing: thou shalt; (3) faith is a passion, the strongest passion and as such the highest form of existence.”76 The first definition is a traditional Lutheran one and emphasizes that Kierkegaard theologically represents a legitimate wing of protestant theology, a point that Helveg underscores in his presentation of Kierkegaard’s attack. it is the personal appropriation that he emphasizes here. The second definition, he claims, recalls more the Catholic than the protestant train of thought. it might seem as if a deed were demanded of the individual in order to establish the relation to god, but— as Helveg writes—Kierkegaard “means his ‘thou shalt’ in a different way; it is not the law’s but as he likes to say, ideality’s.”77 The third definition is idiosyncratic to Kierkegaard, because here reference is made to his analysis of the paradoxical nature of faith. “Here the object of faith is emphasized” in such a way that the possibility of offense stands open. in the following, where the biblical and the post-biblical conception of faith is sketched, Helveg describes faith in the dialectic between gift and demand and ends his article by showing that Kierkegaard, against the background of his analysis of his contemporary age, has found what is demanded, to emphasize the side of faith which is constituted by the demand. the interplay between gift and demand has “been present...from the beginning,”78 even if one of the two sides has always had the upper hand. that means that both sides should be made valid without frightening anyone away from the gift of faith. Faith is “not merely...peace in Christ.”79 Certainly faith is victory, but the form of victory that always has “a quarrel” with the world. Helveg ends his lecture by referring to faith as victory and peace, saying that the will to fight is connected to having a part in the peace that is faith’s: “mere appearance without force is the greatest plague of the church.”80 From the personal version of faith in Kierkegaard, Helveg defends the justification of the attack vis-à-vis a comfortable and unconcerned Christendom. on the whole, the lecture shows that Helveg, already at the beginning of may 1855, was on guard against misunderstandings of Kierkegaard, not least of all the misunderstanding that deprived him of the right to speak as he did.

76

457.

Helveg, “dr. s. Kierkegaards og Bibelens Beskrivelse af den christne tro,” column

ibid., column 458. ibid., column 471. 79 ibid., column 472. 80 ibid. the quotation is from the second strophe of H.a. Brorson’s hymn, “nu verdens rige” from Svane-Sang; see Hans Adolph Brorson. Samlede Skrifter, vols. 1–3, ed. by l.J. Koch, Copenhagen: o. lohse, det danske sprog- og litteraturselskab 1951–56, vol. 3, p. 116. 77 78

170

Søren Jensen

E. The Debate after Kierkegaard’s Death at the same time as Helveg claimed the justice of Kierkegaard’s cause, he argued for the view that there was a continuity in the authorship from the beginning to the end; he was one of the few people to do so at the time in such a thorough and well-articulated manner. particularly in the two articles that appeared right after Kierkegaard’s death he argued for this view. The first article is the aforementioned piece on Hegelianism in Denmark, which appeared a month after Kierkegaard’s death. Here Helveg gives a brief outline of Hegel’s influence on Danish philosophy from Johan Ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860) to Adler. This sketch can be regarded as finished since Hegelian philosophy no longer stands on the agenda, he claims. if one regards the younger generation, one can conclude that “the nest is empty, Hegelianism no longer exists among us. it hardly began to speak before the spirit escaped it,” he writes.81 in its short lifetime Bishop Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854) played a role as its opponent, even though Kierkegaard must be regarded as “the master” in this conflict, and yet his relation to Hegel was not unambiguous. Helveg formulates it like this: “Hegelianism came to an end in Kierkegaard, and yet he never completely rejected Hegel.”82 there was hardly anyone other than Helveg at the time who had an eye for or an understanding of the fact that behind Kierkegaard’s criticism of the system he stood in a relation of dependence to Hegel and was influenced by his way of thinking. in the rest of the article Helveg analyzes the second part of Kierkegaard’s master’s thesis, The Concept of Irony (1841), with the twofold goal of elucidating Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel, and showing the continuity in the authorship. Helveg was an acute observer and analyst, and with a fine sense for Kierkegaard’s text, he makes a hermeneutic caveat with the analysis: “the mentioned work does not just treat irony but is irony, namely, with what concerns its goal, since it contains something quite different and more than the readers could suppose.”83 Helveg doubts that the members of the philosophical Faculty, who at the time evaluated the treatise, were aware that the work was not so much “a qualification for the degree of magister but a program for life, that here it was not a matter of giving a solution to an academic problem but of a task of life.”84 Kierkegaard’s existential cause, which thus was already expressed in the ironic work on irony, was at once characteristic for his distance from and his dependence on Hegel. Here Helveg found his criticism of Hegel, but in the irony—and one should remember that “irony peeps out of almost every word”85—was also the connection to Hegel. Hegel himself had had a sense Hans Frederik Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 51, 1855, column 827 (in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, p. 331). 82 Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 51, 1855, column 829 (in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, p. 332). this claim by Helveg is made into a thesis and thus the object of investigation in Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 81–2; pp. 651–2. 83 Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 51, 1855, column 830 (in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, p. 333). 84 ibid., column 830 (ibid., p. 333). 85 ibid., column 831 (ibid.). 81

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

171

that there was a need for irony, but he could not bring it out, which is certainly due to the fact that “irony was the transition, not from the theoretical to the practical philosophy in the encyclopedic sense, but from science to life.”86 Helveg illustrates the continuity of the authorship with the account that Kierkegaard gives of “the ironic subject.”87 the ironist has understood that what is important is to move “from science to life,” and with a series of quotations from Kierkegaard’s treatise that characterize the ironist, Helveg shows the continuity between this and Kierkegaard’s personal life, without, however, psychologizing. the ironist “knows only this, that the present does not correspond to the idea.”88 He foreshadows, he points to some future fateful event, “but he does not know what it is.”89 He has “stepped out of the ranks of the age, has made a front against it.”90 He has seen through the emptiness in order to emphasize the age as “the moving moment in which we live”;91 everything should be the mass; the age hates isolation and despairs at the thought that a human being could have an idea “that goes through one’s life.”92 The ironist realizes that there is a “masking” or a “mystification,” “not so much in order to hide as in order to get the others to reveal themselves.”93 with these quotations from The Concept of Irony Helveg thinks that the picture that Kierkegaard “gives of the ironic subject is the portrait of his subsequent life, right until he breathed his last in Frederik’s Hospital.”94 it is not necessary to elaborate on this explanation, he thinks, since “with some familiarity with the literature of the pseudonyms it is very obvious to the reader.”95 thus Helveg seeks to demonstrate that what Kierkegaard regarded as his task and what he unfolded in the entirety of his authorship can be traced in some momentary glimpses in an analysis of the second part of the master’s thesis. that Kierkegaard ended up in the prophetic and ultimately gave up his ironic hiddenness, however, “cannot be read as the basic characteristics of the pseudonymous behavior in The Concept of Irony,” admits Helveg, “but yet one cannot deny his entire development from the mentioned work through the pseudonyms and the edifying discourses to The Moment, no. 9, the character of consistency.”96 the connection between the two moments that Helveg wanted to demonstrate, the relation to Hegel and the preliminary formation of what would become Kierkegaard’s task, he finds formulated at the end of the treatise, where he writes: “if our generation has any task at all, it must be to translate the achievement of scientific scholarship into personal life, to appropriate it personally.”97 with the personal appropriation Kierkegaard has not merely stated his own mission in the 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

ibid. (ibid., pp. 334.). ibid., column 833 (ibid., p. 335). see SKS 1, 298 / CI, 260. ibid. (ibid.). ibid. (ibid.). ibid., column 834 (ibid., p. 336). ibid. (ibid.). ibid., column 833 (ibid., p. 335). see SKS 1, 298 / CI, 260. ibid. (ibid.). ibid., column 834 (ibid., p. 336.). ibid., column 841 (ibid., p. 338). ibid., column 847 (ibid., pp. 341–2). SKS 1, 356 / CI, 328.

172

Søren Jensen

master’s thesis but his mission in general: “truly, already with this word K. has written the motto for his life,” he writes.98 a treatise by Jens paludan-müller (1813–99) was the occasion for Helveg to take up the theme from “Hegelianism in denmark” once again.99 paludan-müller had the view opposite to that of Helveg and thought that Kierkegaard, through his role in the attack on the Church, had directly attacked the Christian truth and therefore placed himself in opposition to his earlier authorship. He has “become unfaithful to himself in the final lamentable part of his life,” he writes.100 the occasion for the attack is clear enough: it was martensen’s funeral speech, but paludan-müller thinks that the attack developed as it did because Kierkegaard had lost the ability to express himself, and therefore the attack was a break with what he had written previously. Helveg had no understanding for these claims. in the new article, he underscores that Kierkegaard’s goal was the same from beginning to end. upon a closer analysis of the antiClimacus writings, which play a central role in paludan-müller’s treatise, Helveg cannot find any evidence for these claims. The transference into one’s personal life, which Helveg regarded as something decisive for Kierkegaard, and which he had claimed had been announced in The Concept of Irony, was no less present in the later writings. when one reads in The Sickness unto Death (1849) that “it is tragiccomic to see that all this knowledge and understanding exercises no power at all over men’s lives, that their lives do not express in the remotest way what they have understood, but rather the opposite,”101 then this is evidence for Helveg of Kierkegaard’s efforts to expose “the scientific and the not scientific world’s” break and disruption of the “order” of existence and his efforts to reestablish the rule of our lord in life.102 Kierkegaard had both laughed and cried, and “he also moved the rest of us to both.”103 The Sickness unto Death had given several “tests in the socraticcomic direction,” for example, in the mockery of the pastors—which, incidentally, anticipates the attack on the Church—as well as “the corresponding weeping,” the more serious expression for the matter, was formulated by the same pseudonym in Practice in Christianity (1850).104 the perspective was larger. the humoristic author, Climacus, as well as anti-Climacus criticized the same thing. Certainly, the tone is different, but “the judgment on the existing order...is in both cases the same.”105 in order not to miss Kierkegaard, “one must take the real” Kierkegaard, and Helveg can see clearly that this is problematic. “Can i show K. as he was?” asks Helveg. He Helveg, “Hegelianismen i danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 51, 1855, columns 830–1 (in Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, pp. 333–4). 99 Jens paludan-müller, “dr. søren Kierkegaards indøvelse i Christendom, fremstillet og belyst,” Nyt Theologisk Tidsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1855, pp. 318–405. 100 ibid., p. 403. Helveg’s treatise is entitled “Blev s. Kierkegaard sig selv utro i det sidste ‘sørgelige’ afsnit af sit liv? en paastand af J. paludan-müller, paa ny belyst,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 11, 1856, columns 161–75. 101 Helveg, “Blev s. Kierkegaard sig selv utro i det sidste ‘sørgelige’ afsnit af sit liv? en paastand af J. paludan-müller, paa ny belyst,” column 165. see SKS 11, 203 / SUD, 90. 102 ibid., column 163. 103 ibid., column 165. 104 ibid., column 166. 105 ibid., column 167. 98

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

173

gives his answer in the form of a resumé of what was his own point of departure in order to profit from Kierkegaard. He writes: in my opinion he, more than anything, embodied consistency. But i calmly leave it to anybody to assess the validity of an evaluation that sees an integrity in K.’s life, a trajectory planned from the very beginning, and not only a strange but an unusually gifted consistency. K. is great in his knowledge about himself and his work.106

in other words, Helveg makes an appeal that one abstract from all external works— look behind the strawman—in so far as external works hide the understanding of what the entire mission was. only when one focuses on this can Kierkegaard be seen correctly. in the last section Helveg compares Kierkegaard with Calvin and draws a parallel between these two and grundtvig and luther. Here the article anticipates the criticism that Helveg undertook in the following years, where precisely the relation between Kierkegaard and grundtvig is regarded from the perspective of the reformation. Both of these articles are noteworthy with respect to several points. they are different from by and large everything else that was written about Kierkegaard in 1855. Helveg was able to evaluate Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel in a way that no one else in his time did or had understanding for. this only happened in more recent times.107 in spite of the violence of Kierkegaard’s protests and the general reaction of the Church, Helveg was able to discern the form in Kierkegaard’s attack and hold on to the fundamental view, which he had obtained by studying his authorship and at the same time maintaining that the various attacks on Kierkegaard were misinterpretations. one of the more spectacular contributions to the debate surrounding the attack on the Church was an anonymous Rhymed Letter written by the young grundtvigian Christian Hendrik thurah (1830–98), who was for a time regarded as grundtvig’s poetic heir.108 if there was general agreement that Kierkegaard had crossed the line of what was decent, then people were also in agreement that thurah did the same. He calls Kierkegaard a “sweet bastard” and “a devilish sweet monkey.” He urges him to take the audience out to the cemetery: “First at your father’s resting place / you shall stop and stick out your tongue. Call out thus: ‘Here is your bastard! / Hah! Bah! you old lecher, you cannot answer a peep!’ ” and he refers to the town gossip: “you ibid., columns 172–3. In Denmark a superficial reading of Kierkegaard meant for a long period that his relation to Hegel was seen only as negative. this is, for example, the view of niels thulstrup in his work, Kierkegaards Forhold til Hegel og til den spekulative Idealisme indtil 1846, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967. He does not even mention Helveg. a relaxation of this quite undifferentiated opinion is evidenced in anders moe rasmussen, “Kierkegaards eksistenstænkning som idealismekritik. en analyse af Johannes sløks Kierkegaard-tolkning,” Philosophia—Tidsskrift for filosofi, Århus: Filosofisk Forening 1988, pp. 129–47. See also Joachim ringleben, Aneignung. Die spekulative Theologie Søren Kierkegaards, Berlin: walter de gruyter 1983, passim. 108 C.H. thurah, Riimbrev til Johannes Forføreren alias Dr. Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1855; see aage Kabel, Kierkegaardstudiet i Norden, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1948, passim. 106 107

174

Søren Jensen

sweet little clergy-hater, / you will never be a legitimate father of a child, / perhaps you were all too often, / everyone has his opinion.”109 two reviews in Flyveposten and in Dagbladet distanced themselves from the Rhymed Letter, and in Dagbladet people were surprised that no one from the grundtvig wing had made a response. Helveg answered this challenge.110 also in this case he writes his piece as a reaction to a reaction. after having read thurah’s poem, Helveg did not feel impelled to write about it. His view was that the Rhymed Letter should be judged as a literary work and not on the personal plane. the real relation could be compared with the relation between socrates and aristophanes. with what concerns making someone laughable, “nothing worse had befallen the Copenhagen socrates with thurah, than what his athenian predecessor had to suffer at the hands of aristophanes.”111 Further, the relation was not made any easier by the fact that Kierkegaard had appeared both as socrates and as aristophanes. if one was offended by thurah and not by aristophanes, because one accepted this form in the “coarse ancient times,” then that was fine with Helveg, but then he would maintain the right to point out that one confused the categories. Helveg writes: “may i make a request for the atheian taste and cultivation, with what concerns the aesthetic, then i should accept that every paper in the northern athens stamped me as a barbarian.”112 He ends his comments as follows: there is a boundary that runs between the poetic and trashy literature, which is not crossed by jokes or personal attacks, but is crossed when the view is lost for the ideal. and it is an open question whether thurah has now looked at dr. s. Kierkegaard or also at the ideal, and i would like to herewith throw this question into the debate.113

also in this case, Helveg does not in any real sense appear as the advocate for someone else’s view or behavior, but he admonishes people to sobriety with respect to the question of categories, in order to make for the possibility of a reasonable and fruitful self-judgment. F. The Statement in the years 1857 to 1861 Helveg published a series of articles in which he undertook a criticism, which had three main themes: Kierkegaard, grundtvig and the current state of the goal of the reformation. these articles were originally given as lectures for the congregation in Haderslev. In the first of these Helveg states that the time thura, Riimbrev til Johannes Forføreren alias Dr. Søren Kierkegaard, p. 3; p. 9; p. 19; p. 20. “Først ved din Faders Hvilested / Du standse skal og række Tunge. Raab saa: ‘Her er din Horeunge! / Æh! Bæh! Du gamle Horebuk, Du kan ei svare noget Muk!’ ” “Du lille søde Præstehader, / Du bliver aldrig Barnefader, / Maaskee Du blev det altfor tidt, / Hver tænker sit.” 110 Hans Frederik Helveg, “et ord om thurahs riimbrev,” Dagbladet, no. 251, october 26, 1855. 111 ibid. 112 ibid. 113 ibid. 109

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

175

was ripe to sketch the basic outlines in the relation between “the protest and the corrective, or, put differently, between grundtvig and Kierkegaard.”114 He proposes to do this by focusing on two aspects: the conditions for preaching and its content. with respect to the conditions, this concerned the relation to the existing order. with regard to grundtvig, this was evident in his demand for ecclesial freedom, and with respect to Kierkegaard in the description of the career pastors. grundtvig’s and Kierkegaard’s relation to the reformation is expanded upon in the following two articles.115 These two articles, like the third and final one, were also given as lectures in Helveg’s congregation in Haderslev. there is good reason to look a bit more closely at the last of these articles, partly because it has Kierkegaard as the central figure and partly because it gathers the different threads from before.116 In the same way as Helveg in the first of these articles had tried to give a neutral presentation of grundtvig, he now wants to try to give an account of Kierkegaard. He should have been able to manage the task in the course of the lectures; they had been planned as “an introduction to the participation in the age’s work, this instead of a communication of fixed and finished results.”117 again one sees that Helveg tries to make the conditions for the reader’s self-judgment as normal as possible. according to Helveg’s view, one only comes to an understanding of Kierkegaard if one accepts that his authorship constitutes a continuous whole, and if one regards him in relation to grundtvig. the goal is not to formulate a common name for the two, for “the two men’s doctrines” and their personalities are very different. grundtvig was a historical-poetical spirit, while history for Kierkegaard was regarded as “ornaments,”118 and even if he in a certain sense can be called a poet, the poetical in him is contradicted by what Helveg called “the calculated,” that is, the ability to plan and present his own activity under one point of view. Helveg mentions “the human,” which both grundtvig and Kierkegaard take as a point of departure but in strongly diverging ways. in order to obtain Christianity Kierkegaard begins with the socratic, with which he “helps the contemporary age to selfhood.”119 Kierkegaard’s “life element” must, however, be designated as that of irony in spite of the humor that also characterizes him. the ironist ends in satire, which shows that he had given up the power that could have worked against irony, namely, hope: “it is actually hope that K. is lacking; it is this which gr. has facilitated in a human manner; by giving this up K. has denied the human.”120 Hans Frederik Helveg, “præliminarier til en opgjørelse,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 5, 1857, columns 69–79; no. 6, 1857, columns 85–94 and no. 7, 1857, columns 115–20, see no. 5, 1857, column 69. 115 Hans Frederik Helveg, “grundtræk til en historisk Fremstilling af skriftlæren om daaben,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 31, 1860, columns 493–503; no. 35, 1860, columns 558–71 and no. 36, 1860, columns 578–88; and “nutidens stilling og opgave i Forhold til reformationen,” Dansk Kirketidende, nos. 15–16, 1860, columns 225–56. 116 Hans Frederik Helveg, “afslutning og dog ingen slutning,” Dansk Kirketidende, nos. 20–1, 1861, columns 306–36; no. 22, 1861, columns and 337–50. 117 Helveg, “nutidens stilling og opgave i Forhold til reformationen,” columns 226–7. 118 Helveg, “afslutning og dog ingen slutning,” nos. 20–1, column 314. 119 ibid., column 316. 120 ibid., columns 320–1. 114

176

Søren Jensen

Helveg maintains and elucidates the continuity in the authorship based on four points, which at the same time provide an overview of the most important concepts: (1) the relation to the existing order, (2) the single individual, (3) the paradox and the idea “of truth and its communication and demonstration,”121 and (4) the imitation of Christ. Helveg expands on his previous account. the new element is the dialectic of communication. But also the relation to grundtvig is taken up again. the difference in “the procedure of these spiritual giants”122 is elucidated from their conception of the ideal and freedom, seen in relation to the existing order. Christianity is an ideality, which seeks realization. according Kierkegaard, it has only happened one time, namely in Christ, for which reason a state of war always exists between the existing order and the ideal. For grundtvig—and for Helveg—the period of the apostles represents the realization of the ideal, and in a completely different way from Kierkegaard, grundtvig has a hope about “a position for Christianity in the world.”123 Kierkegaard has no relation to grundtvig’s demand for ecclesial freedom. By contrast, he raises a demand for honesty, which almost stands in opposition to freedom. By way of conclusion he writes “the difference between gr. and K. lies in a fundamentally divergent view of human beings, human life and human relations.”124 There is nothing in Kierkegaard’s theology that is “in conflict with the Protestant principle.”125 to want to reinstate “the single individual” in its rights is typically protestant, and it has been in both “human and Christian interest” that Kierkegaard has done so. in his rejection of the scholarly criticism of “the text, that is, the new testament,”126 Kierkegaard can be said to lead Protestantism to its final consequence, but this happens in order to claim a proper reading of the text. one easily comes to over-interpret Kierkegaard, but this is not fruitful. one ought to let what he says stand for itself and not put something else or something more into it. in this way one does him justice, and this is the basis for learning something from him.127 in a postscript which points forward to a closer examination of the confessional writings, Helveg asks in which of the two—Kierkegaard or grundtvig—is the affiliation and thus the further development of the Reformation most pronounced, and he answers: “not in K. but in gr.”128 the question about the boundary between “the people of Christ and the race of the world” and between “faith and theology,”129 finds its answer in Grundtvig’s view of the church and concept of the church, in his definition of the human in relation to the Christian and of the relation between school ibid., column 327. Helveg, “afslutning og dog ingen slutning,” no. 22, column 338. 123 ibid., column 340. 124 ibid., column 341. 125 ibid., column 345. 126 ibid., column 342. 127 this is the position of Jørgen i. Jensen in ...det tredje øjeblik: mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Frederiksberg: aros 2008. Jørgen i. Jensen is highly dependent on Helveg’s view. see for example pp. 255ff. 128 Helveg, “afslutning og dog ingen slutning,” no. 22, column 345. 129 ibid., column 347. 121 122

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

177

and church. The Grundtvigian Helveg regarded Grundtvig as “the one who first has continued the lutheran reformation with continued explanations of its mission.”130 in his theology Helveg, as noted, worked with literary forms, and he was at an early stage attentive to the relation between theology and the belles lettres. this comes to expression, for example, in an article about “the religious novel,” where Kierkegaard plays a significant role.131 Helveg’s historical sketch of the novel’s origin and its relation to Christianity seems entirely modern; he is aware of the relation of dependence which exists between the Christian message and a fictional presentation.132 He writes that “the novel like all fiction” has “its part in the large task of revealing and portraying the human heart,” and that fiction in preference to “history writing has something in common even with the sacred history.”133 He speaks directly about the stories of the patriarchs and the Book of ruth as “the novel’s correct models.”134 in the development of the danish religious novel Kierkegaard plays a special role. He has “given the impulse for a new appearance of the same.”135 Beyond having himself produced examples in the genre, or perhaps more correctly, the philosophical novel following the model of Friedrich Jacobi (1743–1819), Kierkegaard has been the inspiration for other authors, “his followers,” as Helveg calls them.136 this has happened through the “view of life” that lies at the bottom of Kierkegaard’s authorship and which one must imagine constitutes the background for the action. when Helveg is to elucidate this view of life, the sharp distinction between aesthetic, “the moral,” and the religious must be named. With a superficial reading of Either/Or (1843) one might believe that the choice was solely between an aesthetic or an ethical life view, and that the religious stood outside, but this is not the case. a life is related to all three “stages” at the same time as the distinction which Kierkegaard draws between any two of them, is as such equally sharp. Helveg explains: the sharp drawing of borders between the three spheres of life is in my eyes the basic insight in Kierkegaard and the key to his entire view. Human life (existence) takes on, in these three spheres, an entirely different form. if life is led in an aesthetic manner, then the result is the existence of the genius; when the existence of the genius is not reached, there is no justification for the aesthetic view of life. By contrast, if life is lived in an ethical manner, then it leads to the comfortable existence....If life, finally, is lived in a ibid., column 349. Helveg, “den religiøse roman,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 41, 1857, columns 653–65; no. 42, 1857, columns 672–82. 132 Helveg’s analyses and evaluations often anticipate later views, for which reason his results were not understood in his own time. see søren Jensen, “Bad timing—om at Helveg tit var forud for sin tid,” Fønix, vol. 28, nos. 3–4, 2004, pp. 101–12. 133 Helveg, “den religiøse roman,” no. 41, column 656. 134 ibid., column 657. 135 ibid., column 660. 136 Helveg writes that “various other [writings] can be attributed to Kierkegaard’s influence in their development,” and he mentions two novels by H.P. Kofoed-Hansen, which were written under the pseudonym “Jean pierre” and En religiøs Livs-Udvikling, skildret i Breve fra Cornelius, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845, “udgivne af z.,” who was Kierkegaard’s close friend emil Boesen (1812–81). Helveg, “den religiøse roman,” no. 41, column 669. 130 131

178

Søren Jensen religious manner, then ideality must express itself. perhaps one can say that ideality is genius conceived under the ethical point of view, but it is not K.’s intention to let the religious life be the third and final moment in a dialectical development; he maintains precisely the distinction in opposition to the fluid transitions. Ideality stands in sharp opposition to the foregoing life results, and both of these especially to the previous one: comfortableness.137

thus there is no question that Helveg interprets the stages in a theoretical way, and he even draws attention to the similarities between the religious and the aesthetic, and to the sharper distinction between the religious and the ethical. Kierkegaard’s “view of life” includes an objection against “the unification of the comfortable and Christianity,” which, as Helveg points out in 1855–56, was present from the first pseudonymous work to The Moment. Here the tone is sharpened; Kierkegaard protests, among other things, “against the connection of marriage and Christianity.”138 in the second part of Either/Or marriage is presented as an ethical task or problem, while in The Moment it represents the comfortable. generally, one must say that the objection “against Christianity in the form of comfortableness he varies in manifold ways; in comfortableness drowns...the religious.”139 in The Moment he has given his “objection a firm expression in Ludvig From...and in Frederik and Juliane.”140 Helveg has a good eye for the fact that an authorship like Kierkegaard’s, which is known for its theological and philosophical problems, almost to the end is presented in the medium of fiction and that this is entirely natural and plays a role in shaping it, and there were not so many others who at that time were aware that Kierkegaard’s authorship had the literary significance that it did, and that it not least of all would later have through its influence on other authors. in 1866 Henrik ibsen (1828–1906) published his breakthrough work, the epic drama Brand.141 already in the same year Helveg published a book with an interpretation of this poem and a drama by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832–1910).142 Helveg begins the chapter on Brand by writing: “in not a few poems in denmark as in norway in the course of the last decade the traces of s. Kierkegaard can be seen, in no way, however, to the degree as in the aforementioned poem, which, so to speak, has Kierkegaard as its content.”143 Helveg thus points out again the effect that Kierkegaard had on literature, and he prepares a categorical interpretation of the poem. Kierkegaard constitutes its content. However, this should not be understood directly since the poem has its own hero, Brand, who is not presented as being a ibid., columns 661–2. ibid., column 662. 139 ibid. 140 ibid. Here he refers to Kierkegaard, “ ‘First the Kingdom of god.’ a Kind of short story” and “truth and livelihood,” The Moment, no. 7, see SV1 Xiv, 248–51 / M, 233–6 and The Moment, no. 4; see SV1 Xiv, 174–6 / M, 162–4. 141 Henrik ibsen, Brand, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1866. 142 Hans Frederik Helveg, Bjørnson og Ibsen i deres to seneste Værker, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1866. the chapter on ibsen’s poem is entitled “liv og digt. til Belysning af ‘Brand. et dramatisk digt af Henrik ibsen.’ ” 143 ibid., p. 26. 137 138

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

179

portrait of Kierkegaard. there is much that separates them, but he writes that nonetheless “they ultimately coincide.”144 i will not give an account of Helveg’s penetrating analysis of ibsen’s poem here. the relation of the poem to Kierkegaard will merely be indicated. Helveg thinks that one could get the impression that Brand is more of an Old Testament figure than he is a Christian, and that he stands “at the standpoint of the law.”145 the question of to what degree Brand is a Christian is just as relevant as the question of the “humoristic” Kierkegaard. they are not interested in Christianity’s dogmatic side, but if one for this reason assumes that Brand and Kierkegaard are not dependent on Christianity, then one would be seriously mistaken. to judge in this way would be to do “violence against both the man and life.” “Christianity (or as Kierkegaard said the paradox) is the lever, the only one which is powerful enough to bring ideality forth as that which is not [only] Brand’s goal, but has [already] passed over into his life and has become his life itself.”146 Brand thus gives expression to Christianity through his life. it is Christianity that has “raised him so high that he can catch a view of the highest and aim for it.”147 Brand is a representative for or reflects an ideal, which only exists in and with Christianity, corresponding to the fact that Kierkegaard kept in contact with the ideal: in all this Brand and Kierkegaard are in harmony, however, with the difference which must not be underestimated, namely, that the hero of the poem seldom mentions Christianity but is a warrior for ideality as that which is valid in itself (but without Christianity, ideality would not appear), Kierkegaard, by contrast, uses “new testament Christianity” as the two-edged sword that he swings over the generations.148

thus neither life’s Brand nor the poet’s Brand can be those who are without Christianity. Helveg portrays the further development of the poem as a conflict between “the ideal and the human.”149 the individual characters each represent their form of the human or the ideal. the point is that there exists a relation between the ideal and “the human in general,” and to explain or clear up this relation; this was the point “that Kierkegaard’s life was concerned with...just as the poem is concerned with Brand[’s life].”150 in poetry as a whole these two sides of human life work together because the poem is a picture of life. poetry can, in accordance with time or place, let ideality “assert itself in the presentation of a past magnificence,”151 that is, in the historical or as he calls it “period painting” [Tidsmaleri], and he mentions grundtvig as a representative of this. But ideality can also show itself as “soul painting” [Sjælemaleri], just as the age had a decided interest “in the psychological,” and here Kierkegaard is the greatest representative and inspiration one can mention. 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

ibid., p. 27. ibid., p. 35. ibid. ibid. ibid., pp. 35–6. ibid., p. 37. ibid. ibid., p. 66.

180

Søren Jensen

“while grundtvig was the greatest in spreading ideality’s pure and full light over period painting, so søren Kierkegaard, as no one else, has let the same light fall into the soul painting’s secret.”152 therefore, it is also impossible to write a poem, which is related to the ideal without taking into account the religious. it is even impossible “through ideality to treat even the religious problem in poetry.”153 Helveg thus regarded Kierkegaard as being a presupposition for the literature treated here, and he could therefore also be used as a kind of interpretive key with a view to being better informed about literature and human life. in the discussion after Kierkegaard, rasmus nielsen (1809–84), who was professor of philosophy, came to play a role. while Kierkegaard was still living, Nielsen was, in the years around 1850, a leading figure in a debate about faith and knowledge, and was at this time strongly inspired by Kierkegaard. around 1870 the debate was taken up again, with the participation of all the main representatives of intellectual life. at this point in time nielsen approached the grundtvig wing, and was able in his own way to combine the two directions in danish spiritual life. in 1869 nielsen published a book on the philosophy of religion, which Helveg wrote a short monograph about, in which the relation between Kierkegaard and grundtvig plays a role.154 in the sphere of Christian science, what is at issue is that question and answer are related dialectically to one another. as Helveg writes: “science is not...the art of having an answer to every question, but...the art of questioning.”155 also in this case it is the supplementing element in the relation between grundtvig and Kierkegaard, which Helveg argues for. in reverse order the question and answer are given in a nordic (danish) context, respectively by søren Kierkegaard and n.F.s. grundtvig. Kierkegaard makes Climacus formulate the question: “can an eternal happiness be built on historical knowledge?”156 and grundtvig has, with his historically oriented theology and “the matchless discovery,” formulated the answer. that the answer came before the question says something about “these individual men”157 and their lack of understanding for each other. However, it has no significance for the relation between the question and answer. it is in itself a matter of indifference that grundtvig and Kierkegaard did not come to an understanding of each other; what is more important lies in the fact that “the age recognizes that the contrast means belonging together.”158 Kierkegaard saw it as precisely his task to find the difficulties ibid., p. 67. ibid., p. 67. see also Helveg’s comparision of “Brand og peer gynt,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 5, 1868. even if Kierkegaard is not mentioned here, the comparision and interpretation clearly have their beginning in Helveg’s idea about Kierkegaard’s influence on literature. what Kierkegaard writes about “the self” and becoming a self is one of the presuppositions for Helveg writing his article. 154 rasmus nielsen, Religionsphilosophie, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1869; Hans Frederik Helveg, Religionsfilosofi og Dogmatik, særlig med Hensyn til R. Nielsens “Religionsphilosophie,” Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1869. 155 Helveg, Religionsfilosofi og Dogmatik, p. 13. 156 ibid., p. 14. Cf. SKS 4 p. 213. 157 ibid., p. 14. 158 ibid. 152 153

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

181

(reason enough for grundtvig to call him a hair-splitter). Kierkegaard’s desire to ask questions can be compared with that of scholasticism, but with the essential difference that the difficulties that Kierkegaard pointed to “had the objectionable peculiarity of being taken from existence.”159 Helveg had previously used the sleeping beauty and the hawthorn bush as the image of life’s hidden sources and the difficulties in finding them. He sticks to this image and says that with Kierkegaard it is clear that it is one thing to remain with an “overview” of the difficulties, but it is something else to confront them directly. if one merely seeks such an overview, then one dissociates oneself from the goal; to overcome the difficulties is the presupposition for reaching the goal. what hides behind the thorn hedge is “god’s word, as the lord of all days speaks to his congregation.” Faith is the word of life and the word of light.160 Helveg’s grundtvigianism is not denied, but he embraces Kierkegaard not only when he gives a description of his views and shows their correctness, but it is important to accentuate that he includes elements of Kierkegaard’s theology in his own. as has been indicated, Helveg had followed and read the Kierkegaardian authorship more or less right from the beginning, and even if his theological background was different from Kierkegaard’s, there was nonetheless such a great overlap of interest and so much new thinking in Kierkegaard that Helveg could not avoid being influenced and inspired by him. This incidentally agrees well with Helveg’s position that one ought to learn also from a person whom one is not in agreement with on everything. G. The Posthumous Papers We find a direct occupation with Kierkegaard in Helveg again when Kierkegaard’s Posthumous Papers (1869–81) began to be published. in four reviews which appear in the years from 1874 to 1882 and contain more than 160 pages,161 he rushes in with his remarks about Kierkegaard’s papers and also comments on other publications which appeared as a reaction to the new information gained from Kierkegaard’s private journals and notebooks. with the publication of the second volume of The Posthumous Papers in 1872 it became publicly known that for a number of years Kierkegaard was intensively occupied with adler. the big book from 1846, which he reworked many times, was now published. this gave Helveg the impulse to take up the issue again. Helveg could ascertain that he alongside Kierkegaard was probably “the only one who as a contemporary in the literature spoke out about mag. adler.”162 From a “thought sketch” about what Helveg had previously called “what was calculated,” ibid., p. 15. ibid., pp. 14ff. 161 Hans Frederik Helveg, “s. Kierkegård og ‘de efterladte papirer.’literær-historisk indlæg,” Nordisk månedsskrift, no. 1, 1874, pp. 294–320; “søren Kierkegård og nutiden. indlæg nr. 2,” Nordisk månedsskrift, no. 2, 1877, pp. 290–319; “søren Kierkegård og efterslægten,” Nordisk månedsskrift, no. 1, 1881, pp. 133–56; pp. 278–305; “søren Kierkegårds selvbedömmelse. et sidste indlæg,” Nordisk månedsskrift, no. 1, 1882, pp. 81–111; pp. 250–83. 162 Helveg, “s. Kierkegård og ‘de efterladte papirer.’ literær-historisk indlæg,” p. 305. 159 160

182

Søren Jensen

namely, the interaction between Kierkegaard’s organization of his life and his selfunderstanding, Helveg wants to further elucidate the relation between Kierkegaard and adler. taking his point of departure in The Point of View for My Activity as an Author (1859), Helveg explores Kierkegaard’s “own prophecy about the end of his life and his final appearance in general.”163 when Kierkegaard understood The Corsair’s harassment as “a sign from governance” or when he used an expression like “the order was given,” Helveg thinks that he has found the turning point in the authorship, the shifting of emphasis from the aesthetic to the religious.164 what he had earlier called “the prophetic” begins here and is intensified right up to 1855. The role of governance brings with it a change in Kierkegaard’s relation to his environment and a reshaping of his personality. the former is expressed in the break with the educated people and in an “appeal to the uneducated” in the subsequent edifying writings and the articles from the attack on the Church. But Kierkegaard’s selfconsciousness also changed. “the master of irony disappeared in the tool, the tool of governance,”165 as someone who lets governance rule and only knows how to serve. against this background adler is introduced into the discussion. in an analysis of The Book on Adler, Helveg sketches the goal of the work and places it in the context of the authorship. He especially fastens onto Kierkegaard’s “demonstration of the difference between a genius and an apostle” and to the analysis of “the ‘dialectical’ relation between the universal and the individual.”166 the context in the relation is made clearer in adler’s life since the distinction between the categories “genius” and “apostle” become blurred for him. But for Helveg there is yet another—albeit latent—collision on the personal plane in the book. with his satire, Kierkegaard did not mean to denounce adler personally, but wanted to use him as an epigram on the age, which means that “the existing order should be certain of its judgment.”167 Kierkegaard’s own collision with the existing order appears in the book like a “future thought” whose presentation by adler is stamped “both discernibly and markedly” by this. Helveg’s desire to present the authorship as a continuous whole is characteristic of the account. at the beginning of the next article Helveg claims that the interest in Kierkegaard has awakened again after the Posthumous Papers had begun to be published, apart from the fact that Helveg had always had the feeling that many people were occupied “with him secretly...in order to profit from him,” that is, read him for edification.168 Helveg calls this reading “inwardness,” which he juxtaposes to “registering,”169 that is, a reading that judges and places Kierkegaard in an archive. But by doing this, one keeps his cause away from life and fails it. this kind of reading can be both “sympathetically” disposed or it can be offended. as an example of the registering sympathetic reading Helveg names georg Brandes (1842–1927) and his book on 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

ibid., p. 294. ibid., p. 295 and p. 298. see SV1 Xiii, 550, 553 / PV, 64, 67. ibid., p. 304. ibid., p. 315. ibid., p. 314. Helveg, “søren Kierkegård og nutiden. indlæg nr. 2,” p. 291. ibid., p. 292.

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

183

Kierkegaard.170 as an example of an offended reading he names erik Bøgh (1822– 99). only on the surface is there a difference between them, but down deep they are the same: “in the end mr. g. Br.’s judgment is perhaps just as misleading as mr. erik Bøgh’s.” After the publication of the first volume of The Posthumous Papers Bøgh had written a series of newspaper articles about Kierkegaard and published them as a book.171 Helveg calls Bøgh “the man for respectable bourgeois society”;172 he is offended and does not think of anything other than distancing himself from Kierkegaard. But Brandes does just the opposite. He makes use of Kierkegaard for his own views, but he thereby comes to commit violence against Kierkegaard. it is disturbing that a critical presentation confuses “what the object of the criticism in itself is and what it, in the opinion of the critic, presumably must have been, could have been, indeed, halfway ought to be.”173 Brandes thinks that Kierkegaard, if he had not died, would have ended up as an atheist just like Brandes himself. in Helveg’s view, this is to commit violence against Kierkegaard. one cannot turn his criticism of the Church and Christendom into a criticism of Christianity: “it is characteristic of s.K. that his Christianity is not in the slightest way touched by his view of Christendom.”174 Helveg uses most of this article as a critical analysis of Brandes’ book. He criticizes Brandes for his psychologizing method, which is difficult to use on such an independent person as Kierkegaard, and dismantles the relationships that Brandes uses—Kierkegaard’s relation to his father, to regine olsen (1822–1904) and to The Corsair—so that the reshaping of Kierkegaard that Brandes undertakes in the book is exposed. Brandes does not respect these relationships as they are in themselves. they are made into something fundamental, to use Helveg’s expression: they are made into relations of spirit. when Kierkegaard’s relation to his father is supposed to be determining for his relation to the religious, then he is treated like a child. the same thing is true of Brandes’ interpretation of the relationship to regine, that is, a “relation of the heart,”175 which Brandes likewise renders spiritual. He makes it into an act of will on Kierkegaard’s part and describes the relation as an experiment. it is clear that Kierkegaard would have become a different author without the experience that the engagement gave him, but to relegate a relation of the heart to an experiment is simply absurd. the worst confusion, however, happens when Brandes has the attack of The Corsair and the town gossip be decisive for Kierkegaard’s understanding of the imitation of Christ. even if Kierkegaard had given reason for such an interpretation, this is a misinterpretation. if Kierkegaard had really allowed his relation to his environment to be reflected in his relation to Christ, how “small then is everything in K.’s life.” But fortunately it is not true, and “the calculation of this georg Brandes, Søren Kierkegaard. En kritisk Fremstilling i Grundrids, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1877. 171 erik Bøgh, Søren Kierkegaard og St. Sørens-Dyrkelsen. Feuilletoner, Copenhagen: th. gandrup 1870. 172 Helveg, “søren Kierkegård og nutiden. indlæg nr. 2,” p. 294. 173 ibid., cf. p. 312. 174 ibid., p. 313. 175 ibid., p. 300. 170

184

Søren Jensen

life which mr. g. Br. has given”176 is wrong. it cannot be reasoned away that it was faith and Christianity that Kierkegaard wanted to bring forth. Brandes avoids being offended at Kierkegaard “by letting the criticism become a reshaped endeavor.”177 it is also wrong to claim, like Brandes, that it is the articles from The Moment that have lasting value. This was an attack on Christendom determined by a specific situation and not an attack on Christianity itself: “The judgment on Christendom...as justified, can only be explained from the perspective of an undiminished faith in the truth of Christianity.”178 the critical analysis that Helveg gives in his article, his ability to see through the construction in Brandes’ book, also shows how great an insight Helveg had into Kierkegaard’s authorship. He ends by concluding that “søren Kierkegaard, as he ultimately appears in mr. g. Br.’s well-meaning treatment is not the real one but the one which mr. g. Br. has constructed.”179 Brandes never reacted to this scathing criticism. By contrast, Helveg’s brother did. ludvig Helveg (1818–83) was an editor in the grundtvigian journal that Helveg wrote for. Helveg’s criticism of Brandes could in a certain way be read as a defense of Kierkegaard, and, note well, a defense which rehabilitates him. not everyone was in agreement with this, and certainly not all the grundtvigians and among them ludvig Helveg. Just after the review of Brandes’ book, he published a quotation from a letter from grundtvig from 1855, in which the latter strongly distances himself from Kierkegaard. grundtvig writes that in Kierkegaard’s presentation of Christianity as “the most inhuman thing” there is something quite “anti-Christian,” and that his “procedure with...‘new testament Christianity’ is protestant theology’s method driven to its utmost extreme.”180 Helveg naturally felt hurt, and his third article begins by commenting on grundtvig’s statement. if his judgment, which is “more or less so hard as can be said of one person to another,” were true, then Kierkegaard would belong to those people who must “make the sign of the cross,” which is far from being the case.181 grundtvig and Kierkegaard would, in the given case, be entirely irreconcilable, and it would be “a thousand pities.”182 Kierkegaard had, incidentally, never spoken so harshly of grundtvig. He had not done so in the published works or in the papers, where Kierkegaard’s statements are similar to those of the authorship, and where he likes to “play with a joke or with sarcasm.”183 that grundtvig and Kierkegaard could not be united in life had its ground in what was personal, but this is something “passing,” and “the spirit therefore demands that one try them both—not as alternative choices, ibid., p. 309. ibid., p. 315. 178 ibid., p. 316. in his Livstanke og livsgerning. En redegørelse (Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1892, p. 68) Helveg writes: “s. Kierkegård...aimed at...the situtation of Christianity, unchanged through all times, consequently the relation between Christianity and Christendom....what K. first wants is to get clear about the categories of Christianity.” 179 Helveg, “søren Kierkegård og nutiden. indlæg nr. 2,” p. 315. 180 l. Helveg, “en udtalelse af grundtvig om søren Kierkegaard. (i et privat brev, mig meddelt),” Nordisk månedskrift for folkelig og kristelig oplysning, no. 2, 1877, pp. 319–20. 181 Helveg, “søren Kierkegård og efterslægten,” p. 134. 182 ibid. 183 ibid., p. 155. 176 177

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

185

but—by choosing what is of value in each of them.”184 Helveg sees a common striving in them to stand as “a link in the resurrection of Christianity among our people.”185 purely historically, this is expressed in the fact that they supplement each other, and in an “analogous” relation, which, however, must be regarded under the sign of contradiction. First the struggle against rationalism was important, which grundtvig participated in together with mynster at the beginning of the century. later it was Kierkegaard: namely, when rationalism in the form of speculation again asserted itself. the analogous relation Helveg also sees in “the view of the conditions of faith, which does not refer to the conditions of a spiritual nature that could influence faith in its pure spirituality.”186 whereas for grundtvig the word of faith was valid as the ground of faith, for Kierkegaard it concerned the circumstance that faith was able to enter into existence “anew”; this was apparent for grundtvig in the development of the demand of ecclesial freedom, and for Kierkegaard in the consideration of faith as the highest form of existence. the opposition to grundtvig’s demand for the ecclesial legislation is Kierkegaard’s view: “the easier one makes it for faith (and its proclaimers), the more one distances oneself from the possibility that faith can even exist. get rid of Christianity...that is the way in which it can be introduced a second time, perhaps more truly than the first.”187 Helveg did not intend to harmonize Grundtvig and Kierkegaard. He had profited from studying both of these two giants, and he notes both the personal and the theological differences, but had first and foremost a view for what one can take and learn from each of them. one topic on which Kierkegaard and grundtvig collided was on the question of history. Kierkegaard completely rejected history or “the 1800 years”188 as argument for faith. Helveg was completely in agreement with this view. likewise, he did not think that history gave proof for the truth of Christianity or that the distance from Christ, which history is an expression of, made it more difficult to believe today than it did back then. For Kierkegaard it was sufficient to know “God’s presence in time.” Beyond this, history had no significance.189 Helveg, however, could not follow him on this. according to his view, history has a spiritual dimension that Kierkegaard thus denies. Helveg illuminates his own view with Kierkegaard’s use of the history of the Bible. The Old Testament has significance in the individual episodes, which are used to elucidate a determinate situation. this is the case in the description of the paradox of faith and the repetition of the concept in the interpretation of the stories of, respectively, abraham and Job. according to Helveg’s view, these descriptions are lacking in the exemplary character that they are supposed to have. the fundamental relation in the biblical history between prophecy or model and fulfillment is overlooked by Kierkegaard, who uses the biblical ibid., pp. 135–6. ibid., p. 153. 186 ibid., p. 273. 187 Helveg, “søren Kierkegårds selvbedömmelse. et sidste indlæg,” p. 278. 188 ibid., pp. 101–2. 189 see Hans Frederik Helveg, Hen til Kristus! En Slags Traktat til Fortsættelse, Forsvar og fredelig Forstaaelse, Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1864, p. 17. 184 185

186

Søren Jensen

narratives as he does. He overlooks contexts, which, for Helveg, are important to show. Helveg thus criticizes Kierkegaard from his own theological perspective. “For there is...the strange duality in Kierkegaard’s position that he, in his pointing out of the incarnation, in his maintaining of the historical in the sphere of faith, forms a definite opposition to rationalism, and yet his view of history as a whole is, to the extreme, that of the eighteenth century.”190 in his “prophetic” theology Helveg had a completely different, organic relation to history and was able to integrate it in a fruitful manner into his theology. H. Conclusion As early as 1846 Helveg mentions Kierkegaard as “an author whose significance for our literature should have been more intuited than understood.”191 this remark says something about the general reaction to the pseudonymous authorship. it was still far from having entered into the collective consciousness as something that one valued. as late as 1850 Hans lassen martensen (1808–84) can write about the pseudonymous works: “my knowledge of this verbose literature is...only limited and fragmentary.”192 this is not a merely arrogant remark; there is certainly also something quite true in it. But Helveg as early as 1846 had already had an eye for the fact that this verbose authorship had a value beyond what was usual. in connection with a discussion in germany about the ecclesial situation in schleswig, Helveg wrote an article in a german periodical,193 in which he in one place speaks of modern german rationalism and thinks of d.F. strauss (1808–74) and ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), and notes that it has for the most part not made any inroad in denmark. He thinks that this is due to “einem eben so eigenthümlichen als fruchtbaren Schriftsteller, Mag. S. Koerkegaard, den man schon zu Zeit den ersten theologischen Verfasser Dänemarks nennen konnte.”194 Kierkegaard was only reviewed a very few times in germany, but as one sees, he had still not yet made a name for himself such that the german periodical could spell it correctly! even if Helveg’s evaluation of Kierkegaard from 1851 is put forth in a passing remark, it is typical for him. to call Kierkegaard “den ersten theologischen Verfasser Dänemarks” is noteworthy. it shows again that Helveg with his knowledge of Kierkegaard was “already” clear about what potential lay in the authorship and what the future had in store for it, and so it is striking that Helveg gives Kierkegaard the first place before grundtvig, whom he stood closer to theologically, or before martensen, to mention Helveg, “søren Kierkegårds selvbedömmelse. et sidste indlæg,” p. 280. Hans Frederik Helveg, “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 45, 1846, column 729. 192 Hans lassen martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850, p. 13. 193 Hans Frederik Helveg, “die kirchlichen zustände im Herzogtum schleswig. eine erwiederung,” Zeitschrift für Protestantismus und Kirche, vol. 23, erlangen: theodor Bläsing 1852, pp. 50–67; pp. 88–106. the article appeared in danish a few months earlier: Helveg, “gjenmæle mod artiklen ‘die kirchliche zustände o.s.v.’ i ‘zeitschrift für protestantismus und Kirche,’ ” Dannevirke, nos. 233–9, 1851, no page numbers. 194 Helveg, “gjenmæle mod artiklen ‘die kirchliche zustände o.s.v.,’ no. 237. 190 191

Hans Frederik Helveg: A Receptive Grundtvigian

187

one of the the university theologians who had an international reputation. that the left-oriented consequences of the Hegel-inspired speculative theology were opposed by Kierkegaard’s efforts, this we know today, but there were only a few people other than Helveg—not to mention Kierkegaard himself—who seriously had a sense for this in 1851. Helveg’s passing comment in the article from 1851 is presumably the first place in a foreign periodical where Kierkegaard is evaluated so generally and so precisely. there is only scant evidence that Helveg was read at his time or after it. one can well regret this, for his view of the relation between grundtvig and Kierkegaard could have helped this discussion, which has continued through the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, to develop in a more positive manner. as a grundtvigian—and thus with a theological position that was different from Kierkegaard’s—Helveg demonstrated in the finest manner the approach that he recommended people to use when they went to Kierkegaard’s writings: learn from them and take the best from them.195 Translated by Jon Stewart

Helveg is listed in the commentary apparatus to SKS to be the presumptive author of two reviews in Dansk Kirketidene, 1848–49 of Two Ethical-Religious Treatises (SKS K22, 186), and of rasmus nielsen’s Evangelietroen og den moderne Bevidsthed (SKS K22, 293, 503). this is mistaken. in the table of contents to the relevant volume of the Dansk Kirketidende it is stated that several reviews are “by Helweg,” but here reference is made to ludvig Helveg, which is in fact noted in most of the relevant articles. Dansk Kirketidende, no. 189, 1849, column 549. the commentary has not taken these passages into account. 195

Bibliography I. Helveg’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Biblen eller den hellige Skrift, paany oversat af Grundtexten og ledsaget med Indledninger og oplysende Anmærkninger. Udgivet i Forbindelse med Pastor Helweg, Prof. Hermannsen og Candidat Levinsen af Chr. H. Kalkar, Sognepræst til Gladsaxe og Herløv Menigheder, vols. 1:1, 1:2, and vol. 2, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing & søn and p.g. philipsen 1847 (ASKB 8–10). “Kirkenyt fra Hertugdommerne,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 1, no. 30, 1846, see columns 501–4 (ASKB 321–325). “mag. adlers senere skrifter,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 45, 1846, columns 729–40. [review of] “Fr. Chr. sibbern. Om den christelige Yttringsfrihed i kirkelig Henseende,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 55, 1846, columns 45–8. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Helveg anonymous, [review of] “Tvende Prædikener af Frederik Helweg. philipsens Forlag,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 1, no. 45, 1846, column 744. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Helveg Bertelsen, otto, Søren Kierkegaard og det første grundtvigianere, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1996, pp. 30–3; p. 43; pp. 95f.; pp. 118–22; pp. 137–41; pp. 153–5; and pp. 158–61. Jensen, Jørgen i., ...det tredje øjeblik. Mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Frederiksberg: aros Forlag 2008, p. 14; p. 166; p. 180; pp. 184ff.; p. 193; pp. 255ff.; pp. 258f; pp. 265f.; p. 267; pp. 288f.; p. 290; and pp. 300ff. Jensen, søren, “Frederik Helveg og søren Kierkegaard—en grundtvigianer mellem kierkegaard-recension og -reception,” Fønix, vol. 15, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–21. —— “Bad timing—om at Helveg tit var forud for sin tid,” Fønix, vol. 28, nos. 3–4, 2004, pp. 101–12. olesen, tonny aagaard, “Frederik Helveg og hans fremstilling af Kierkegaard. introduktion til ‘Hegelianismen i danmark’ ” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 24, 2007, pp. 305–29. stewart, Jon, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 81f.: p. 456; p. 460; pp. 646f.; pp. 651f.

peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage thorkild C. lyby

in his own way, peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88) was just as extraordinary and just as fascinating a person as his much more renowned younger brother søren.1 Both of them inherited their father’s brilliant gifts and his dialectical acumen. Both of them inherited his scrupulousness and his tendency to black melancholy. and both of them inherited his gloomy concept of Christianity. all this was to exert such a major influence on them that their entire lives were in fact determined by it. at the age of 11 their father, michael pedersen Kierkegaard (1756–1838), had left a very poor background on the heaths of Jutland in order to go to Copenhagen. He made a living there as a tradesman and later as a merchant, and he even acted as a speculator in houses, becoming so rich that at the age of 40 he could retire and spend the rest of his life living on independent means. during his retirement he turned to studying and obtained a considerable insight in both theological and philosophical matters. especially the german philosopher Christian wolff (1679–1754) seems to have caught his interest. But all in all he was so well-informed that during his son peter’s studies in germany he could give him detailed instructions concerning which theologians he ought to consult. peter called him the most gifted man he had ever known. Although a member of the national church, he sought edification in the Copenhagen congregation of the moravian Brethren. later the renowned preacher Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854), from 1834 bishop of zealand, became his favorite spiritual adviser.2 Coming from a part of the country where pietism had rather strong traditions, his religiousness was grave and gloomy, concentrating very much on the ethical aspect of Christianity and the tension between law and gospel. in his case, the former might often overshadow the latter. while this was partly due to inborn tendencies, he had a special reason for having such a gloomy outlook. He always remembered leif grane in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–16, ed. by svend Cedergreen Bech, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979–84, vol. 7 (1981), pp. 638–9. 2 valdemar ammundsen, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom, hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1912, pp. 17–19; pp. 24–7; pp. 31–3; pp. 61–5; otto Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1953, pp. 11–12; pp. 19–20; Joakim garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, pp. 10–13; pp. 24–5. 1

190

Thorkild C. Lyby

that as a little boy on the heaths, painfully alone with the sheep he had to herd, cold, hungry, and extremely unhappy, he had turned his eyes towards the sky and cursed god almighty, who—if he actually existed—could bring himself to let a helpless unhappy child suffer in this way. that experience had an overwhelming effect on him, and he never got rid of the pangs of conscience connected with the memory of it. The story is confirmed by both his surviving sons, who were deeply impressed by it.3 Since after the move to Copenhagen he obtained quite astonishing financial success, a great family, and general esteem, it could seem as if god, who actually did exist, and whom he had cursed, was now overwhelming him with blessings. Could his cursing of god then go unpunished? By and by he became convinced that in consequence of his sin, a curse was upon him and his entire family, so that all of his children would die before they had lived beyond the age of Jesus Christ, which means before they had reached the age of 34, so that he alone would survive and remain alive as a remorseful penitent. naturally, such a conviction would result in a rather gloomy outlook on life. this outlook also left its mark on peter Christian Kierkegaard, who was born on July 6, 1805 as the first son after three daughters, later being followed by three more sons. Looking back in 1877, he depicts family life during his youth as confident and cheerful, especially after the happy marriages of two sisters. But soon a series of deaths changed the atmosphere. while a brother and a sister died as early as 1819 and 1822, during the short span of years from 1832 to 1834 another brother, the two married sisters, and their mother died. Both the father and the two surviving sons saw this as an omen, indicating that the idea of the curse was right. in fact, søren Kierkegaard was astonished that he reached the age of 34. nevertheless the idea proved wrong, since their father died in 1838, when both peter and søren were still alive. But it is understandable that this whole sequence of events would intensify any natural tendency to a somber view of life.4 peter was brilliantly gifted, and, just like søren, he used to carry on profound discussions with their father in whose house they stayed until they were mature men.5 at the age of 11, he went to school (the Borgerdydskole), where he took the General Certificate (studentereksamen) in 1822. He received an extraordinarily fine evaluation from the headmaster, michael nielsen (1776–1846), who characterized him as a pupil who stood out among the rest as an example for the others. after three-and-a-half years of university studies he graduated in 1826 in divinity, the first in his class. even here he received outstanding evaluations from the professors. one of them, Jens møller (1779–1833), writes that he would never have believed that a SKS 18, 278, JJ:416 / KJN 2, 257. H.p. Barfod, Til Minde om Biskop Peter Christian Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1888, pp. 13–14; ammundsen, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom, hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling, pp. 3–5. 4 see SKS 20, 122–3, nB:210. B&A, vol. 1, pp. 166–7 / LD, p. 211, letter 149; Carl weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1936, pp. 137–8; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 12–14; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 134–8. 5 Eline Boisens Erindringer, vols. 1–3, ed. by anna Bojsen-møller, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1999, vol. 1, p. 282. 3

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

191

young person could carry on a dispute with such acuteness, such composure, and such elegance as Kierkegaard had often done.6 For a couple of years Kierkegaard taught classical languages at his old school, at the same time pursuing studies in recent philosophy. in may 1828 he went to Berlin, where he studied for more than a year. although the university of Berlin was at that time considered the leading center of philosophy, he was not particularly impressed by it, and at any rate he did not uncritically swallow everything he heard. although he acknowledged the renowned g.w.F. Hegel (1770–1831) as a genius, he criticized his lectures on the philosophy of history rather severely, especially because of what he regarded as Hegel’s incompetent treatment of the early history of Christianity. nor did he feel it necessary to attend the lectures of philipp marheineke (1780–1846), since in the opinion of Kierkegaard he was too uncritical a disciple of Hegel. His mentions of F.d.e. schleiermacher (1768–1834) and J.a.w. neander (1789–1850), although brief, are more respectful. especially the latter seems to have had a certain influence upon him by finally turning him away from any tendency towards rationalism. already in Berlin Kierkegaard started preparing a doctoral dissertation for the licentiate, but because of his general view of the university there, he preferred to take his degree at another place. still, he wanted to do so at a foreign university, and in a letter to mynster he explained why: he wanted to visit Catholic university libraries in the Netherlands, and he thought it might be difficult to get access to them for a graduate in divinity from a protestant country.7 By way of Halle and—maybe— leipzig he went to göttingen, where on december 14, 1829, he defended his thesis on the concept of lying (De notione atque turpitudine mendacii). Because of his skill in Latin and his efficiency in argument, he was styled “The demon debater from the north” (Der Disputierteufel aus Norden).8 in 1830 he went to Bonn, utrecht, louvain, and leyden. By coincidence, he was in paris when the July revolution broke out, and although he did not sympathize with it, he had to participate in building barricades in order to avoid being suspected for spying. He even had a couple of bullets pressed into his hands for use in the coming fight. Soon after, he managed to get out of Paris, and during the fall he returned to denmark by way of germany.9 At first, he stayed for some months in the house of Bishop P.O. Boisen (1762– 1831), who lived in the village of vesterborg on the island of lolland. according to the bishop’s daughter-in-law eline Boisen (1813–71), who wrote some very detailed and very outspoken memoirs, he was in love with the bishop’s daughter elise marie, known simply as marie (1806–37) already before his stay abroad and had even displaced another suitor in her favor. But obviously both the Kierkegaard brothers had difficulties in getting on with women. Eline Boisen says that although he was seriously in love with marie, he generally treated her in a very inconsiderate and Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 15–17. weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 29–31. 8 ibid., p. 25. 9 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 19–24; Eline Boisens Erindringer, vol. 1, pp. 178–9. 6 7

192

Thorkild C. Lyby

even insulting way. He was always swimming against the current, eline says, just like his brother søren. was it clumsiness or was it embarrassment? eline thought it might be something he did in order to test marie’s feelings towards him. at any rate she says that marie was very unhappy about it. after having waited for ten years, they were at last engaged in June 1836, and although he was still so occupied by his work that marie in her sincere love for him felt neglected, they were married in october.10 marie was a sprightly and vivacious young woman, and undoubtedly she brought a welcome element of mirth and joy into the gloomy atmosphere of the old father and the two brooding brothers. in 1877 her husband wrote that with her entrance into the family a gentle sunlight dawned even upon his old father, and that his brother søren was not untouched by it, either. But the task of creating a happy home may have been too much for her. already in 1837 she fell ill, and in July she died—after just nine months of married life. Kierkegaard was deeply grieved, but nevertheless eline saw in this premature death a special blessing by the lord, since in her opinion the peculiar atmosphere of the home had, after all, been a burden to marie.11 at the beginning of 1831, Kierkegaard resumed his teaching activities at his old school, and from 1833 he also tutored undergraduates in divinity. From time to time he contemplated the possibility of becoming a clergyman, but since with his dialectical talents he could always see both the pros and the cons of any matter, he always had difficulties in making a decision. He could be so irresolute that in the moravian way he sought oracular signs in the scripture. in the question of taking orders he was also irresolute. at last he did apply for two different positions, but without success. in 1833 he was appointed vicar of vejerslev-Blidstrup parishes on the island of mors. But because of the scrupulousness which never left him, he could not bring himself to take it. He considered himself unworthy of the holy office, and he dared not take the vow which was required at the ordination. after scruples and consultations first with his father and then with N.F.S. Grundtvig (1783–1872), he asked the king’s permission to withdraw from the position.12 another possibility was an academic career. in november 1833 he sought permission to give philosophical and theological lectures at the university. But, since he was not a doctor of divinity, he was not allowed to give theological, but only philosophical lectures. during the fall of 1834 he then lectured before a crowded audience at the Faculty of philosophy, at the same time preparing a thesis in divinity, which would qualify him to give theological lectures. But the matter was complicated by his relationship to grundtvig. already in the middle of the 1820s, when the great controversy between grundtvig and the professor of theology H.n. Clausen (1793– 1877) was raging, Kierkegaard had befriended several of grundtvig’s disciples. Eline Boisens Erindringer, vol. 1, pp. 181–3; p.190; p. 336; p. 482; weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 99–102; p. 104. 11 Eline Boisens Erindringer, vol. 1, pp. 339–40, vol. 2, p. 516; weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 109–11, pp. 116–17; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 111–15. 12 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 25–8; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 41. 10

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

193

during the 1830s he slowly but surely drew closer to grundtvig, and from 1832 he attended grundtvig’s evening services in the Frederik’s Church. He never became just an echo of grundtvig, and controversies between them did occur. nevertheless he had made his choice. their relationship was so close that mutual friends told Kierkegaard that grundtvig would be disappointed if he did not appear when in 1861 grundtvig celebrated his jubilee as a clergyman; and many years later the grundtvigian pastor otto møller (1831–1915) was surprised that Kierkegaard was not asked to speak at grundtvig’s funeral. He must have been the obvious choice, møller thought.13 But back in the 1830s Grundtvig was very far from being the national figure he later became, and at the university he was just considered an obscurant—not only because of his controversy with the highly respected Clausen, but also because of his contacts with revivalist circles. to join forces with him would therefore mean the loss of one’s academic reputation. nevertheless, on February 9, 1834, Kierkegaard published a piece in the periodical Den Nordiske Kirketidende—a translation of a swiss article on the upbringing of children—and later in the same year he published two more contributions.14 that was enough to compromise him. the periodical was edited by Jacob Christian lindberg (1797–1857), a devoted disciple of grundtvig and a keen polemicist. Kierkegaard himself characterized it as a despised periodical. to publish something there effectively meant confessing to being a grundtvigian. this was damaging to his reputation at the university of Copenhagen, and he was severely reprimanded by Bishop mynster.15 still more shocked was the Faculty of divinity when in august 1835 he delivered his thesis De theologia vere christiana, præcipue autem philosophica ejus parte, rite construenda commentatio, which turned out to be a philosophical investigation and substantiation of grundtvig’s great idea that not the scripture, but the apostolic Creed and the sacraments were the hallmark of the Christian church throughout the centuries. on october 25 the faculty informed him that the thesis was accepted for defense, although not without hesitation. professor leif grane (1928–2000) has shown that the decision of the faculty was clearly determined by tactical considerations. the examiners considered grundtvigian theology to be nonsense and at any rate incompatible with protestantism, and so, out of four examiners only one actually considered the thesis worthy for defense. the other three declared it unworthy, nevertheless two of them recommended it for

Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, p. 18, pp. 37–8; pp. 2–46; Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, vols. 1–4, ed. by erik nørr, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1999, vol. 2, p. 57. 14 “et par ord om en christelig opdragelse af andreas Bräm, v.d.m. i Basel. oversat og meddelt af p. Chr. Kierkegaard,” Den Nordiske Kirketidende, 1834, columns 81–96 and 113– 28, “romersk Betragtningsmåde af Jødedom og Christendom,” ibid., columns 312–19, and “en martyrhistorie fra det tredie aarhundrede, oversat og meddelt af p. Chr. Kierkegaard,” ibid., columns 497–508; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 33–4. 15 garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 35. 13

194

Thorkild C. Lyby

defense, one conditionally and out of fear for public reaction and the other out of respect for Kierkegaard’s philosophical thesis from 1829!16 after this scornful treatment, Kierkegaard was inclined to withdraw, but friends persuaded him to go on. on January 29, 1836 he gave the public defense which lasted nine hours, with no less than seven critics or opponents. only one of them sympathized with his views, but according to contemporaries who were present, his talents for academic debate resulted in quite a brilliant performance. one of the auditors, peter rørdam (1806–83), wrote that he was, as it were, playing catch with both the faculty and his opponents.17 Having a degree in divinity, Kierkegaard could not, according to danish university rules, be denied the right to lecture at the university, and from 1836 to 1838 he actually did give lectures on subjects from the new testament. nevertheless, any chance of a normal academic career was gone, and again he turned to the idea of being a clergyman. in september 1842 he was appointed to the vicarage of pedersborg and Kindertofte near sorø, and just before Christmas he took over. almost immediately he was confronted by a very serious problem. up to 1849 the danish church was a state church, so that being a loyal subject of the danish state in principle also meant being a member of the danish church. But since 1839 Baptists had been gaining ground, and so the authorities had to respond to the challenge. on the advice of Bishop mynster, a decree was issued on december 27, 1842, stipulating that babies of Baptist parents who stubbornly refused to have them baptized, should be baptized by arrangement of the authorities—which meant by means of force. in actual fact, there were cases where babies were collected by the police and delivered back to their parents when they had been baptized.18 But Kierkegaard would under no circumstances carry out compulsory baptisms. in the first case he asked to be excused from doing it, while at the same time indicating that he would not oppose an arrangement whereby the baby was baptized by another pastor. in consequence of this, the baptism was carried out by a pastor of nearby sorø. another case was resolved in a similar way, but in december 1844 a new case appeared, and when the mother and the child disappeared, the sorø pastor refused to have anything more to do with the whole matter. again it fell to Kierkegaard, and on February 16, 1845, the government requested him within a fortnight to indicate whether he was willing to execute the baptism or whether he preferred to submit his resignation. if he did neither, he would be summarily dismissed. He refused both, and several other clergymen, among others grundtvig, supported him keenly. the government wavered, and on January 30, 1847, the decree of compulsory baptism was repealed. Kierkegaard had been victorious, but in all probability this was only leif grane, “omkring peter Christian Kierkegaards teologiske disputats,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 1976, pp. 122–49. 17 Peter Rørdam. Blade af hans Levnedsbog og Brevvexling, vols. 1–3, ed. by H.F. rørdam, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1891–95, vol. 1, p. 79; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 29–33. 18 Kaj Baagø, Vækkelse og Kirkeliv i København og Omegn, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1960 (Vækkelsernes Frembrud i Danmark i første Halvdel af det 19. Århundrede, vol. 1), pp. 133–4; pp. 139–40. 16

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

195

due to the fact that he was a personal acquaintance of the king and queen, who both held him in high esteem. when the constitution of 1849 introduced religious freedom in Denmark, and compulsory baptism was officially abandoned on March 4, 1857, the problem disappeared.19 the introduction of religious liberty meant that several sects saw possibilities in denmark, and for some time their assaults were a real problem for the church. Among others, Mormonism made quite significant inroads. Kierkegaard took up the challenge and tried to limit the impact of their missions. although it was unrealistic to consider an academic career, still it was clear that he was qualified for it. In 1851 he received a petition signed by 53 theological undergraduates and candidates, asking him to apply for a vacant professorship in divinity. He did so, but the government declared him unqualified. Again in 1854, when professor Hans lassen martensen (1808–84) became bishop of zealand, 90 theologians asked him to apply for the vacant professorship. again he did so, but the faculty declared both him and Johan Alfred Bornemann (1813–90) qualified and left the decision to the prime minister, anders sandøe Ørsted (1778–1860), who was also minister for ecclesiastical affairs and public instruction. Ørsted preferred Bornemann, probably because he did not want a grundtvigian on the faculty. Ironically, Bornemann’s period of office turned out to be a complete disaster. His teaching abilities were so poor that the students several times complained about it, and at last the impossibility of the situation was so obvious that he submitted his resignation.20 when in 1848 the constitutional monarchy was introduced, Kierkegaard sought in vain to be elected to the national constituent assembly, and after the constitution of 1849 he sought election to the lower house of parliament, the Folketing, but with no better luck. instead, he was elected as a member of the upper house, the Landsting, where he sat from 1849 to 1852, supporting the political claims of the peasants. when in 1853 a commission was appointed to frame a special constitution for the church, he was an obvious choice for membership. the commission sat for a year but, just like the commissions which were later appointed with similar tasks, it was not successful. although Kierkegaard hardly agreed with grundtvig in his claim of the dogmatic and liturgical liberty of the clergy, balanced by the liberty of the parishioners to go to another pastor, he was still in favor of liberality and broadness in the church, and it is probable that he was the first man to interpret the words of the constitution that the affairs of the national church should be arranged “by law” as “by means of current legislation” instead of “by a special church constitution.” at any rate, he was definitely against a church constitution since he feared it might mean spiritual coercion.21 Eline Boisens Erindringer, vol. 1, p. 496, vol. 2, pp. 511–15; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 107–10. 20 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, p. 35; Knud B. Christoffersen: “professor J.a. Bornemann og studenterne,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 1974, pp. 173–97. 21 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, p. 104, p. 112. 19

196

Thorkild C. Lyby

whether or not he was a success as a country parson is open to question. His profundity and his way of expressing his thoughts were hardly consonant with his parishioners’ way of thinking and speaking. during the periods when he was away in parliament, he had to employ a deputy pastor, whose services met with a considerably larger attendance than those of Kierkegaard. But, according to the grundtvigian pastor vilhelm Birkedal (1809–92), he was magnanimous enough to express his joy that his parishioners were now being served in a way which met their needs.22 among his colleagues he was highly respected, partly because of his lectures in the southwest zealand and roskilde conventions of clergymen and partly because of his writings. the roskilde Convention was formed in 1842 as a consequence of the general interest in participating in public life aroused by the liberal trends in thinking, and animated debates took place there. as is to be seen in the grundtvigian periodical Dansk Kirketidende, where his lectures were printed, it is clear that during these years he concentrated on three subjects—the grundtvigian concept of the church, which he defended steadfastly and ably, the polity of the danish church, and the writings by his brother søren. since he was extremely well-founded and from an academic point of view very eloquent, he exercised a decisive influence upon the opinions of his fellow pastors. such a convention was much more his sphere than writing. nevertheless, he was busy writing. already from 1840–42 he, together with theodor vilhelm oldenburg (1805–42) published the periodical Nordisk Tidsskrift for christelig Theologi, where he wrote most of the articles himself. later he published a continuation called Fortsættelser fra Pedersborg (1849–53). most of his writings deal with subjects from the new testament and church history. they are original and profound, but his style of writing is not very readable. it is well documented that as an orator he could fascinate and inspire any assembly, but his writings are ponderous and heavy, full of digressions and parenthetical sentences. perhaps Jørgen K. Bukdahl (1936–79) hit the nail on the head when he remarked that whereas søren was the best writer of the country and almost the worst speaker, peter was no doubt a very poor writer, but highly gifted as an orator.23 Because of his thoroughness and his tendency to be distracted, he was better suited for handling clearly defined tasks than for surveying and organizing more diverse material. His exegetical works are therefore clearly better than his historical ones. He had a plan of writing a church history arranged according to grundtvig’s idea that the letters to the seven congregations of the revelation, chapters 2–3, are to be taken as prophecies of different periods of church history, determined by the different nations which have at different times been prominent in church life.24 His first attempt was “The Church of Jesus Christ in the National Churches,” which appeared in the third and fourth volume of his Nordisk Tidsskrift for christelig

vilhelm Birkedal, Personlige Oplevelser i et langt Liv, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1890–91, vol. 2, p. 81. 23 Jørgen K. Bukdahl, Om Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981, p. 81; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 44–5. 24 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 64–6.

22

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

197

Theologi.25 in this he only managed to put forward his principles of writing church history and to deal with the Christian community of Jerusalem in apostolic times. He did not get any further. ten years later he was asked to give a lecture at a missionary meeting at Lyderslev. He then resumed the work and fulfilled it as far as it was possible to do in a lecture estimated to last 75 minutes. later he published it in the second volume of his Fortsættelser fra Pedersborg entitled “the lord’s triumphant march through the national Churches.”26 altogether the two pieces scarcely amount to 200 pages.27 of course, they are far from a modern conception of critical scholarly work, nevertheless they reveal a thorough reflection on the historian’s relationship with his material, and profound remarks are scattered throughout. the most original and most consequential of his views was the idea that the story of the acts of the apostles, chapter 2, of what happened on whitsunday cannot, as is usual, be seen as the founding of the Christian Church. the Church was not founded on whitsunday, but during the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension. the church must necessarily be founded by its master, that is, Jesus Christ, and not by the Holy ghost, and therefore the foundation principles must have been given while Christ was still together with the apostles, which means they must have been given during that period of which the new testament tells almost nothing. By means of profound attempts to fathom the conversations between Christ and his disciples during that period, he actually finds in the scant information of the New testament traces of a church-founding activity, and so, whitsunday becomes the end of the founding period and not the birth of the church. especially important was the idea that the church-founding activity also included the Creed, which Christ must consequently have given to the apostles during that period. in later grundtvigian tradition that view was hardened into the idea that he had dictated it word for word to the apostles. during the latter half of the nineteenth century it actually became a dogma or a shibboleth for grundtvigians that the apostolic Creed was “the little word from the very mouth of our lord himself.” even grundtvig himself adopted the idea, although in essence it was far removed from the core of his “matchless discovery” of 1825.28 Concerning his relations with his much more renowned brother søren, we could perhaps say that the very similarities between them turned out to be a hindrance for very good relations. Both of them took matters very seriously, and even small differences of opinion could easily grow into large ones. and the differences which arose between them were certainly not small. Because of the difference of age, a curious relationship was established rather early. as a teacher of greek in his old school, peter for a time had søren as his pupil. it is a well-known fact that as a schoolboy søren was inclined to teasing, a practice p.C. Kierkegaard, “Jesu Christi Kirke i Folke-Kirkerne,” Nordisk Tidsskrift for christelig Theologi, vol. 3, 1841, pp. 11–48; vol. 4, 1841, pp. 168–208. 26 p.C. Kierkegaard, “Herrens seierstog igjennem Folke-Kirkerne—Christelig Folketavle,” Fortsættelser fra Pedersborg, vol. 2, 1852, pp. 1–84. 27 peter Christian Kierkegaard, Samlede Skrifter, vols. 1–6, ed. by poul egede glahn and lavrids nyegård, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1902–05, vol. 2, pp. 1–193. 28 Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 60–3. 25

198

Thorkild C. Lyby

by which he managed the somewhat difficult relationship to his fellow pupils. In 1869 F.p. welding (1811–94) recalls that when peter was teaching, søren sometimes caused him difficulties by bringing the fraternal relation into the teacher–pupil relation, thereby teasing even his brother. on the whole the relationship between them did not develop too smoothly during søren’s childhood. nevertheless it appears that well into the 1840s it was not bad.29 when in 1841 søren defended his thesis The Concept of Irony, peter paid him the honor of appearing as one of the critics. still, there were differences between them quite early. For one thing, søren never liked grundtvig. already during the 1830s his dislike of him was clear, and by and by grundtvig became more and more repulsive to him. when peter became a confessed, although original, disciple of grundtvig, søren had to make reservations; and when søren’s ascetic way of understanding Christianity became ever clearer, the distance between them grew.30 several events contributed to increasing it. in 1841 søren broke his engagement with regine olsen (1822–1904), which resulted in severe condemnation of him by the public. of course peter did not like this, and in a letter to emil Boesen (1812–81) of February 6, 1842 søren mentions with disappointment a certain reserve on his brother’s side. peter’s comment “now you are lost” could not be very pleasant to søren, either; still it must not necessarily be taken as an expression of hostility. at any rate, peter could not, like so many others, regard søren simply as a rogue.31 As mentioned above, in late 1842 Peter got into difficulties concerning the question of compulsory baptisms. at this point søren could not agree with him. in a letter of February 5, 1843 he looked forward to a visit by peter, but added that “on this matter” their ideas were and would remain different. with “this matter” he in all probability meant the compulsory baptism case.32 on February 18, 1843 he had been informed that Peter’s attitude had resulted in a conflict with Bishop Mynster. He wrote that he was very sorry that his brother should come into conflict with a man he admired as much as the bishop. nevertheless, he wanted to express his sympathy. He enumerated different reasons why peter should give up his point of view, and he did not forget to warn peter against “the party” which was now supporting him— the grundtvigians. nevertheless, he ended his letter by exhorting peter to do what seemed right to him, and always to be convinced of søren’s sympathy.33 on February 10, 1845, when the new case had appeared, and matters had come to a head, he declared that if the man in question had not been his brother, he would have wished victory for the bishop. now he was on both sides and wished there had never been

ammundsen, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom, hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling, pp. 49–50; weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, p. 21; p. 40; p. 173; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 69–71; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 19–20; pp. 45–6; p. 116; p. 294. 30 garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 36. 31 Cf. B&A, vol. 1, p. 107 / LD, p. 138, letter 68. SKS 18, 234, JJ: 297 / KJN 2, 214; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 188. 32 B&A, vol. 1, p. 114 / LD, p. 147, letter 74. 33 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 115–16 / LD, pp. 147–8, letter 75. 29

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

199

such a conflict. In conclusion he assured Peter of his “brotherly affection,” and on February 18 he declared that his affection only increased with the danger.34 when on march 19, 1846 he sent him a copy of his book the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he mentioned expressly that it was meant as “a token of friendship.”35 on may 19, 1847—after the Corsair affair—he sent a letter in which he mentioned how he had worked incessantly for several years without the least bit of outside encouragement, and how he, on top of this had been for a long time the object of ugly treatment by rabble vulgarity, by coarseness, and by curiosity, day in and day out. His words may contain a sting against peter, nevertheless he ended the letter by mentioning the possibility of visiting peter in pedersborg and staying there for a few days.36 in an undated letter from 1848–49, where he wrote some very critical remarks on peter’s appearance at the roskilde Convention, a certain affection or at any rate respect could still be traced. it would be unwise and repugnant, he wrote, to give up hope of being understood by a man who was so dialectically advanced as peter, who had so much strength of character, and who was moreover his brother. possibly the letter was not sent at all.37 But as it turned out, the hope was in vain. already in october 1846 peter had given a speech in the southwest zealand Convention where he criticized søren’s view of Christianity, especially as it was presented in the Philosophical Fragments and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. in his opinion it was marked by pietism. this would be bad enough. much worse was it when on october 30, 1849 peter gave an improvised lecture on søren’s works in the roskilde Convention. Curiously enough, this was not at all the main theme of the meeting. in fact, peter had been asked to give a lecture on something else—if there would be time left when the negotiations were over. He had promised this, but on the evening before the meeting he had got another idea and tried “in haste” to arrange his thoughts about that. it turned out to be an exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:13, concentrating on the terms “being beside ourselves” and “being sober.” going on, he made a comparison between søren and professor martensen and characterized martensen as a representative of sober-mindedness and søren as “ecstatic.” His point was that to søren faith was something so absolutely subjective that it was entirely independent of circumstances and evidence, of speculations and doubts, unshakable and unquestionable in itself, so that any other consideration could be disregarded. But he also allowed himself to point out the paradoxical fact that while to søren Christianity was to an extreme degree a matter for the individual, he was already getting disciples—by which he meant professor rasmus nielsen (1809–84), who may have considered himself a disciple of søren, but whom søren would in no way acknowledge as such. all in all, Peter compared the reading of Søren’s books with having a cold shower bath: at first

B&A, vol. 1, pp. 139–41 / LD, pp. 176–9, letters 116–17; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 318–9. 35 B&A, vol. 1, p. 149 / LD, p. 189, letter 133. 36 B&A, vol. 1, p. 168 / LD, p. 213, letter 149. 37 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 218–19 / LD, pp. 277–8, letter 194. 34

200

Thorkild C. Lyby

it makes you gasp, but afterwards you feel refreshed. later the lecture was put in writing and printed in Dansk Kirketidende.38 peter may not have taken this rush job too seriously. But søren did indeed. in fact, he was furious. For one thing, he despised conventions. like numerous other attempts to make an effect just by their numbers they were something evil, he thought.39 Furthermore, he had no respect for martensen as a theologian. six years before, on June 29, 1843 he had even written to peter that after martensen’s book— probably his book on baptism—it was incredible that martensen could still be styled a “thinker.” what he had written in the book was just thoughtless conceit.40 now peter was comparing him with martensen! moreover, peter’s characterization was founded on such books by søren which were written under pseudonyms, indicating that the views put forward in them were not necessarily his own. and what was perhaps worst of all, to the public peter’s expression “ecstatic” would mean nothing but a fantastic dreamer, or even a madman. in a letter to peter of december 1849 he started by saying that if peter’s lecture had been well-intentioned, he would have to thank him, although in several ways it had made a painful impression on him. But then he expressed his bitterness over the comparison with martensen. the difference between him and martensen was that he on an exceptionally large scale had made sacrifices, while Martensen on an exceptionally large scale had gained profit. Furthermore, Peter should not have identified him with the pseudonyms. Even in print he had asked to have the difference between himself and the pseudonyms respected. He had expected such carelessness least of all from peter.41 in the journals the tone becomes more and more bitter, and the comments on peter become more and more derogatory. already in 1848 he had declared that peter’s petty-mindedness and envy was the only thing his family had done for him. peter had even considered søren’s troubles during the Corsair affair as god’s punishment. in retrospect his view of peter’s attitude in the compulsory baptism case becomes scathingly ironical, he writes, “He [peter] sets himself up against the government. and what then? He enjoys honor and status and admiration as a martyr—and what then? then he keeps his position. no one rumples a hair of his head. you see, candidates for this kind of martyrdom can be found!”42 and in 1850 he writes that peter’s way of defending himself, “when efforts were made to remove him from office, was not Christian but legal. He hangs on to the concept of a state

38 Dansk Kirketidende, december 16, 1849 (no. 219), pp. 171–93 (the comparison pp.178–93); weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 232–4; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 73–6; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 637–41. 39 B&A, vol. 1, p. 218 / LD, p. 277, letter 194. 40 B&A, vol. 1, p. 122 / LD, pp. 156–7, letter 83. Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Daab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843. 41 B&A, vol. 1, pp. 264–5 / LD, pp. 337–8, letter 240. 42 SKS 20, 317, nB4:63 / JP 5, 6106.

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

201

church just as hard as any one of its champions if he happens to disagree with it on a particular point.”43 in another entry søren writes, “it is beyond me how a man can be like that.” When Peter was in difficulties with Bishop Mynster, Søren hurried to write “to him again and again.” But orthodox people “have a kind of joy when they believe that now god is punishing someone else.” nevertheless, he insists that he feels the same for his brother as he has always done. “as usual the one to whom god grants the extraordinary is misunderstood, especially by friends and relatives.” He ends by saying that there has always been something wrong in the relations between peter and himself.44 Concerning the lecture of 1849, søren wrote: now peter is going to have his say about the authorship. How is one to react to that? i know very well that he has merely read here and there in some of the books—that is enough for him. (n.B. this is based on his own words.) then he took it upon himself to give an address at the convention. But it so happened that the contemplated address could not be used—so he gets the idea the night before to say something about martensen and søren and r. nielsen. the lecture was given—and then printed. if one remonstrates that it lacks genuine knowledge, the answer is: well, good lord, it was only a convention address. But why print it, then?45

in another journal entry, Kierkegaard writes, if martensen is to be compared with paul, “then paul..becomes ecstasy pure and simple.” peter’s concept of sobermindedness is a mixture of “philistinism and indolence” and could only partly be considered a religious concept. søren claims that he is the really sober-minded man, which precisely appears from the fact that he uses pseudonyms to represent ecstasy, while in the edifying discourses, which he publishes under his own name, he speaks “gently and quietly.” But peter elevates himself in a triumph of “mediocrity.” and his self-complacent verdict takes on extra authority because he is søren’s elder brother.46 søren complains in another entry that peter has never commented upon his works. But now he compares søren with martensen, thus elevating himself above both of them. He thinks himself “capable of passing judgement on 7 years’ work in half an hour.” no word of sympathy came from peter when søren was exposed to persecution from the rabble. in fact, he withdrew from then on. But now he points out that søren is getting disciples—peter, who in almost ridiculous affectation has been an adherent and imitator of grundtvig.47 still more scornful was his opinion when in december 1849 peter, in accordance with the rules of democracy, which søren despised, was elected a member of the see SKS 23, 14–15, nB15:10 / JP 6, 6570. SKS 20, 411–12, nB5:95 / JP 6, 6176; weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 220–3; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 71–3; pp. 76– 8. 45 SKS 22, 392, nB14:81 / JP 6, 6550. 46 SKS 22, 401–2, nB14:95 / JP 6, 6553. (Translation modified.) 47 SKS 22, 403–4, nB14:97 / JP 6, 6554. (Translation modified.) 43 44

202

Thorkild C. Lyby

Landsting, in 1850 he writes: “to me it is impossible to understand peter. although he knows how elections come about, he considers any member of parliament a man of honor.”48 in another entry, he writes about his brother, “what an earnest patriot, who in enthusiasm hurries along to balloting and gladly join hands with envy!”49 and again in another entry one reads, “But peter always fraternizes with triviality, in which he also has frittered away his life.”50 to fritter oneself away in insignificance—that is the special achievement of our times. And, referring to the social conventions among grundtvigians, he declares: “this is what peter is doing under the name of cordiality and conviviality.”51 in 1854 søren opened his passionate struggle against the established church, starting from martensen’s commemorative speech on mynster. to søren, the image of Mynster had by then developed into the very symbol of the falsification of Christianity. in this relentless struggle, during which he worked himself to death, he was deeply hurt by the fact that no word of sympathy was heard from his brother. His remarks about him become more and more scathing.52 But on July 5, 1855 a fraternal response actually came. in the Convention of roskilde, peter was persuaded to give an improvised lecture on søren’s attack. the lecture was not printed, but can to some extent be reconstructed from notes in peter’s archives. Just like in 1849, he started with a piece of exegesis, this time of 1 Corinthians 1:22–4, with reference to which he warned against both over- and underestimating the terms “sign” and “wisdom” in their relationship to faith. “Faith” should certainly not be confused with “signs” or “wisdom”; but both could act as harbingers of faith and appear as experiences when faith was acquired. it was not reasonable to consider god’s wisdom as something absolutely contrary to human wisdom. if it was, it would be impossible for human beings to become aware of the riches of god’s wisdom. Christianity is not, as the “the academy of pseudonyms” would have it, eternal suffering and penance, but life, development, and growth in the faith, which is given by Jesus Christ. Considering the flabbiness of the times, exaggerations may be justified; but to proclaim that new testament Christianity actually does not exist is a contradiction of the new testament itself. 53 with this peter had openly challenged his brother at a moment where søren was already under an immense strain. He probably did so because he felt compelled to. deeply and sincerely rooted in grundtvigian theology, he was highly respected for his original thinking and his learning not only among grundtvigians, but among his colleagues in general. When Søren started such a bitter attack on “official Christianity,” founded on his radical interpretation of the new testament, it was inevitable that attention would focus upon peter. what was his opinion? in that SKS 23, 106, nB16:19. SKS 23, 246, nB17:106. 50 SKS 24, 75–8, nB21:125.b / JP 6, 6695. 51 SKS 24, 123, nB22:36 / JP 6, 6706. 52 garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 639; p. 660. 53 otto Holmgaard, Exstaticus–Søren Kierkegaards sidste Kamp, derunder hans Forhold til Broderen, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967, pp. 23–84; cf. p.C. Kierkegaard, Samlede Skrifter, vol. 4, pp. 99–125; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 78–87; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 769–71. 48 49

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

203

situation silence would necessarily be misunderstood as indicating that he more or less approved of søren’s attack—which he did not. so he had to speak out. and so that tragic brotherly strife was unavoidable.54 For Søren this was the final blow. He never forgave Peter, and when the latter came to visit him on his death-bed, søren refused to see him. when on one of his last days his brother-in-law Henrik Ferdinand lund (1803–75) asked if he might give his regards to peter, he was willingly allowed to do so, but on condition that the matters on which they disagreed were not mentioned. at søren’s funeral, peter prayed for the guidance of the Holy ghost to see such verities of which it had been granted to søren to bear witness for the sake of truth and earnestness, and to avoid what was wrong and misleading. Furthermore, he confessed his shame and remorse because neither he nor anybody else had had the love to get through to søren and make him relax from the immense strain to which he had been subjected during his last months. perhaps the scandalous behavior of their nephew Henrik lund (1825–89) at the interment was more in the spirit of søren than his brother’s vain attempt to understand him.55 If we are to find a few positive elements in this sad story, we could perhaps mention the fact that søren’s informal testament was framed as a letter to peter, in which he asked him to take care that everything he left should go to regine. it was probably written in 1849. in another letter of 1851 he wrote that he also wanted to leave his literary works to her. peter did not see these letters until after søren’s death.56 likewise, a certain amount of sympathetic affection is still to be found in peter’s behavior after søren’s death. in 1859 he published The Point of View for My Work as an Author57 and in 1876 Judge for Yourself.58 in 1877 he even gave his permission to publish a new edition of Kierkegaard’s articles from The Moment,59 although to him there could hardly be any pleasant memories connected with it. He did not want his name on the edition, either. nevertheless, as late as 1873 he spoke

Carl Jørgensen, “skuffelsen med peter,” in his Søren Kierkegaards Skuffelser, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967, pp. 62–3. 55 p.C. Kierkegaard, Samlede Skrifter, vol. 4, pp. 125–28; eduard geismar, Søren Kierkegaard. Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed, vols. 1–6, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1926–28, vol. 6, pp. 99–101; weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, pp. 255–6; pp. 265–7; pp. 273–4; p. 279; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 87–91; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. xvii–xx; pp. 769–71; p. 788; p. 790; pp. 796–9. 56 B&A, vol. 1, p. 25 / LD, document XXi, p. 33. Cf. also B&A, vol. 2, p. 14 / LD, p. 450. 57 søren Kierkegaard, Synspunktet for min Forfatter-Virksomhed. En ligefrem Meddelelse. Rapport til Historien, ed. by peter Christian Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1859. 58 [søren Kierkegaard], Dømmer selv! Til Selvprøvelse. Samtiden anbefalet. Anden Række, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1876. 59 søren Kierkegaard, Øieblikket, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1877 [1855]. 54

204

Thorkild C. Lyby

very appreciatively about søren’s works and said that he assumed that in the future very great importance would be attached to them.60 in 1856 he was appointed bishop of the diocese of aalborg, the northernmost diocese of Denmark. This was the first time a Grundtvigian was made bishop, and the appointment may be taken as a sign of the reputation he had won among his contemporaries. nevertheless, there might also be a second reason. it may be that martensen, who was at that time Bishop of zealand and the chief adviser of the government in ecclesiastical affairs, wanted him as far away from Copenhagen as possible. in consideration of the means of communication of these times, we must admit that aalborg was indeed far away. Kierkegaard himself called it the siberia of northern Jutland.61 still, the appointment could only be considered an honor, and he took his official duties very seriously. He carried on the visitations of the parishes with great diligence, he encouraged the pastors to studies and diligence in the execution of their duties, and he was very conscientious in deciding all doubtful questions placed before him. although known as a grundtvigian, he was very far from being biased in his attitude to the grundtvigians. if anything, he appeared more critical of them than of the other pastors.62 vilhelm Birkedal says that when he visited the parishes of grundtvigian pastors with their “joyous Christianity,” he emphasized the law, but when he visited pietistic parishes, he preached the gospel.63 in fact, there can be no doubt that during his later years he became still more critical towards the grundtvigians and to some extent even towards grundtvig himself. the future Bishop of zealand thomas skat rørdam (1832–1909) went so far as to say that he had almost disowned his past as a grundtvigian.64 otherwise, he seems to have been rather tolerant.65 on information received, otto møller (1831–1915) admitted that he might be something of an inquisitor, nevertheless he characterized him as both a serious and an extraordinarily competent man.66 as in pedersborg, he was confronted with both Baptists and mormons, the latter of whom had made a great impact in the northern part of the diocese. He fought them with considerable success both in writing and in speeches, but of course he could not eliminate their influence Mellem Otto og Jakob–61 års brevveksling mellem Gyllingpræsten Otto Møller og præsten og naturvidenskabsmanden Jakob Severin Deichmann Branth, vols. 1–2, ed. by erik nørr, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1986, vol. 1, p. 55. 61 weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, p. 291. 62 Mellem Otto og Jakob–61 års brevveksling mellem Gyllingpræsten Otto Møller og præsten og naturvidenskabsmanden Jakob Severin Deichmann Branth, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 1, p. 49. 63 Birkedal, Personlige Oplevelser i et langt Liv, vol. 2, p. 81. 64 Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 2, p. 168. 65 Mellem Otto og Jakob–61 års brevveksling mellem Gyllingpræsten Otto Møller og præsten og naturvidenskabsmanden Jakob Severin Deichmann Branth, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 1, p. 46; pp. 54–5; p. 64; p. 205; Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 2, pp. 132–3. 66 Mellem Otto og Jakob–61 års brevveksling mellem Gyllingpræsten Otto Møller og præsten og naturvidenskabsmanden Jakob Severin Deichmann Branth, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 1, pp. 48–9. 60

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

205

completely. at any rate, he was highly respected. thomas skat rørdam regarded his replacement in 1875 by peter engel lind (1814–1903) as a decline.67 during the latter half of the century, the grundtvigians had obtained so much respect and so much influence on church matters that they could not be ignored, especially since they had an impact not only on church life, but through the folk high school movement even on cultural and political life. in fact, grundtvigianism had developed into the most powerful cultural current of the century. among other things, they gave occasion for an innovation in danish church life which has no parallel in any other country. many grundtvigians were keen nationalists, and the defeat of 1864 and the loss of southern Jutland were seen by them as a catastrophe which could not be overcome. as a member of the Rigsraad, vilhelm Birkedal, who was vicar of the parish of ryslinge on the island of Funen, had shown determined opposition to the government, and furthermore he had from the pulpit prayed the lord to give the new king, Christian iX (1818–1906), a danish heart—if possible! in consequence of this, he was dismissed from office; nevertheless he went on preaching and acting as a minister of a free congregation that gathered around him. since the conservative prime minister, Count C.e. Frijs (1817–96), needed the political support of the grundtvigians, he wanted this disorder legalized by the introduction of the idea of valgmenighed, that is, a congregation formed by the voluntary union of a certain number of members of the national church, choosing their own pastors but remaining within the national church and under the supervision of the diocesan bishop. to carry this through, Count Frijs, after several attempts, succeeded in september 1867 in persuading Kierkegaard to take over the position as minister of ecclesiastical affairs and public instruction. He was generally received with great expectations. otto møller had his misgivings, but thomas skat rørdam saw the appointment of him as an extraordinarily happy choice. as expected, Kierkegaard did introduce the bill and defended it ably in parliament. But his official duties were a heavy burden to him. with his scrupulousness he felt obliged to go into every small matter coming to the department. søren used to calle him pusillanim, and in 1873 otto møller called him a foolish hairsplitter, although an honest man.68 Furthermore, Kierkegaard knew that the idea of valgmenighed was very unpopular in the generally conservative clergy, and when in February 1868 all the other bishops together delivered a sharp protest against the bill, which was followed by an address, signed by about 40,000 clergy and lay people, he gave up and resigned after just half a year in office.69 the bill had to be Carl weltzer, “Biskop p.C. Kierkegaard. nogle linier i hans Bispegerning,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 6th series, vol. 4, 1942–44, pp. 436–517; pp. 532–4; Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 2, p. 170; p. 176; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 125–30. 68 Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 1, pp. 171–4; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 40; Mellem Otto og Jakob–61 års brevveksling mellem Gyllingpræsten Otto Møller og præsten og naturvidenskabsmanden Jakob Severin Deichmann Branth, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 1, p. 60; Cf. also SKS 20, 411, nB5:95 / JP 6, 6176. SKS 22, 313, nB13:65 / JP 6, 6516. SKS 23, 57, nB15:82 / JP 6, 6581. 69 weltzer, “Biskop p.C. Kierkegaard. nogle linier i hans Bispegerning,” pp. 517–32; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 113–20. 67

206

Thorkild C. Lyby

carried through by his successor, a vicar by the name of aleth Hansen (1817–89). But he only succeeded because Count Frijs made it a matter of confidence. Kierkegaard’s private life did not give him much pleasure. Being a widower, he married sophie Henriette glahn, known as Jette (1809–81), in 1841. she lived for 39 years after the marriage, but for 38 years she was ill and spent almost all her time in bed. the doctors could not help her, and already then some of their friends thought that the real reason for her illness might be of a psychological and not a physical character. on the other hand, eline Boisen, who with all her critical remarks insists that she liked Kierkegaard, says in no uncertain words that out of jealousy he actually wanted his wife to be ill, so that he would not have to share her with others.70 together they had one son, pascal michael poul egede Kierkegaard (1842– 1915), who caused them much distress. although brilliantly gifted like the rest of the family, he was mentally and physically disturbed and even spent some time in an asylum. to his father it must have been a heavy disappointment that he broke completely with Christianity. although he impressed all his friends by his gifts and his acute mind, nevertheless he could not control himself, but lived a disorderly life, which to his father must have been another confirmation of the conviction that there was a curse on the family. the last years of Kierkegaard’s life were dark and unhappy. the permanent illness of his wife and the going astray of his son made his fatigue and his black melancholy increase, and in 1875 he resigned from office. He considered himself unworthy to be a bishop and saw himself as a thief and a usurper in the office. as a token of respect, a house, paid for with money raised by subscription, was presented to him in 1876, but still he was lost in melancholy. the tendency to be overly conscientious, to brooding, and to self-reproach increased. otto møller said he was obsessed by his own sinfulness. in 1879 he was offered an honorary degree of divinity but refused to accept it. in the same year he asked to be relieved of his episcopal rank and to have permission to return his decorations. according to H.p. Barfod (1834–92), he did not obtain the permission, and so he put them away in a drawer, never to use them again. on his own initiative, he was declared incapable of managing his own affairs in 1884. He denied himself access to the sacrament, as he did not consider himself worthy of it. He wrote letters with humble apologies for imagined insults he thought he had made many years previously. His mind became more and more deranged, and during the last years of his life he was clearly insane. He died on February 24, 1888, 83 years old—a tragic example of a great personality with extraordinary intellectual gifts, who was crushed by a far too heavy family heritage, a far too strong consciousness of sin, and a far too weak mind.71

Eline Boisens Erindringer, vol. 2, pp. 514–16; p. 636; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, p. 296. 71 H.p. Barfod, Til Minde om Biskop Peter Christian Kierkegaard, pp. 21–4; Breve mellem Otto Møller og Thomas Skat Rørdam 1854–1909, ed. by erik nørr, vol. 2, p. 171; vol. 3, p. 338; Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, pp. 131–5; garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, pp. 807–10. 70

Bibliography I. P.C. Kierkegaard’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library “om baptistfødte Børns tvangs-daab,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 1, nos. 15–16, 1845, columns 225–63 (ASKB 321–325). “Ærbødigst andragende til den høit ærede Bestyrelse af Bibel-selskabet for danmark,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 182, columns 425–8. “sluttet selskab,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 6, no. 319, 1851, columns 739–40. “literær Forespørgsel,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 389, 1853, column 192. “nogle Bemærkninger angaaende det Billedliges Forhold til det Christelige og det Kirkehistoriske,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, nos. 405–6, 1853, columns 433–59 and vol. 8, no. 407, columns 465–78. Fortsættelser fra Pedersborg. Kirkeligt Tidsskrift, vols. 1–2, vol. 3, no. 1, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849–53 (ASKB 372–375). De notione atque turpitudine mendacii, göttingen: typis dieterichianis 1829 (ASKB 601). De theologia vere christiana, præcipue autem philosophica ejus parte, Copenhagen: C.g. schiellerup 1836 (ASKB 602). (ed.), Mindeblade om Theodor Wilhelm Oldenburg, Præst til Sorterup og Ottestrup. Smaadigte af den Afdøde, Copenhagen: J.C. scharling 1844 (ASKB u 74). the minutes of speeches made by p.C. Kierkegaard: —— “roskilde præstecovent. mødet i ringsted d. 20de octbr. 1847” [the minutes of the pastoral meeting at ringsted on october 20, 1847], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 3, nos. 114–15, 1847 [for the minutes of p.C. Kierkegaard’s speech], see columns 169–84 and vol. 3, nos. 122–3, 1848, columns 288–306. —— “roskilde Convent. (mødet den 12te october 1848)” [the minutes of the pastoral meeting at ringsted on october 12, 1848], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 170, 1848 [for the minutes of p.C. Kierkegaard’s speech], see columns 240–4. —— “roeskilde præsteconvent (den 30te october 1849)” [the minutes of the pastoral meeting on october 30, 1849], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 219, 1849 [for the minutes of p.C. Kierkegaard’s speech], see columns 171–93. —— “roeskilde præstekonvent (møde i roeskilde den 4de Juli 1850)” [the minutes of the pastoral meeting at roskilde on July 4, 1850], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, nos. 253–4, 1850 [for the minutes of p.C. Kierkegaard’s speech], see columns 747–57.

208

Thorkild C. Lyby

II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss P.C. Kierkegaard anonymous, [review of] “Fortsættelser fra Pedersborg. Kirkeligt Tidsskrift. udgivet af p. Chr. Kierkegaard. 2 Binds 3die Hæfte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 335, columns 158–60 and vol. 7, no. 336, 1852, columns 855–6. —— [review of] “Fortsættelser. Kirkeligt Tidsskrift. udgives af pastor p. Chr. Kierkegaard. tredie Binds 1ste Hefte. 1853,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 400, 1853, columns 365–8. gad, C. pram, “roeskilde præstekonvent. (efteraarsmøde i ringsted den 17de oktober 1850) [the minutes of the pastoral meeting in ringsted on october 17, 1850], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 267, 1850 [on p.C. Kirkegaard], see columns 970–3. møller, poul martin, “De Notione Atque Turpitudine Mendacii Commentatio. autore petro Christiano Kierkegaard, phil. doct., gottingæ mdCCCXXiX (trykt i Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, 7de Bind (1832), s. 65),” in Efterladte Skrifter af Poul M. Møller, vols. 1–3, ed. by Christian winther, F.C. olsen, and Christen thaarup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 2, pp. 84–104 (ASKB 1574– 1576). rudelbach, andreas g., Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historiskkritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1854, p. 461; pp. 467–8 [vol. 2, 1856] (ASKB 193). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to P.C. Kierkegaard ammundsen, valdemar, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom, hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1912. Baagø, Kaj, Vækkelse og Kirkeliv i København og Omegn, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1960 (Vækkelsernes Frembrud i Danmark i første Halvdel af det 19. Århundrede, vol. 1), p. 134; pp. 139–40. Barfod, H.p., Til Minde om Biskop Peter Christian Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1888. Bertelsen, otto, “peter Christians foredrag på roskilde Konvent 30. oktober 1849,” in his Dialogen mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990, pp. 47–58. —— otto, ”søren Kierkegaards forhold til broderen peter Christian,” in his Dialogen mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990, pp. 48–54. Birkedal, vilhelm, Personlige Oplevelser i et langt Liv, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1890–91, vol. 2, p. 81. Bukdahl, Jørgen K., Om Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981, pp. 81–2. Croxall, t.H., “peter and søren,” in his (trans. and ed.), Glimpses and Impressions of Kierkegaard, digswell place: nisbet 1959, pp. 116–30. Frederiksen, emil, “de fjendtlige Brødre s. og peter Kierkegaard,” in his Fra Saxo Grammaticus til Hjalmar Gullberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1944, pp. 91–8.

Peter Christian Kierkegaard: A Man with a Difficult Family Heritage

209

garff, Joakim, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, pp. xviii–xix; p. 7; p. 14; p. 17; p. 19; p. 22; pp. 38–50 passim; p. 97; p. 111; pp. 115–16; p. 127; pp. 152–4; pp. 188–9; p. 199; p. 217; pp. 294–5; pp. 318–19; p. 389; pp. 429– 30; p. 440; pp. 505–7; p. 560; pp. 636–46 passim; p. 660; pp. 669–71; p. 791; pp. 796–812 passim. (originally as SAK Søren Aabye Kierkegaard. En biografi, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 2000.) geismar, eduard, Søren Kierkegaard-Livsudvikling og Forfattervirksomhed, vols. 1–6, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1926–28. grane, leif, “omkring peter Christian Kierkegaards teologiske disputats,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 1976, pp. 122–49. —— “Kierkegaard, peter Christian,” Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–16, ed. by svend Cedergreen Bech, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979–84, vol. 7 (1981), pp. 638–9. —— “sørens Broder. om peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–1888),” in Fra Egtvedpigen til Folketinget. Et festskrift til Hendes Majestæt Dronning Margrethe II ved regerings-jubilæet 1997, ed. by poul lindegård Hjorth et al., Copenhagen: det Kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab 1997, pp. 81–108. Holm, Jakob, “p.Chr. og søren Kierkegaard,” Folkerøsten, vol. 7, no. 49, 1913, pp. 385–6. Holmgaard, otto, “søren Kierkegaard,” in his Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1953, pp. 69–103. —— Exstaticus–Søren Kierkegaards sidste Kamp, derunder hans Forhold til Broderen, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967. Howitt, william, “the Brothers Kierkegaard,” in his The Literature and Romance of Northern Europe, vols. 1–2, london: Colburn 1852, vol. 2, pp. 239–40. Jensen, Finn gredal, “two letters discovered: From J.C. lund to p.C. Kierkegaard and from regine schlegel to Henrik lund,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2006, pp. 261–70. Jørgensen, Carl, “skuffelsen med peter,” in his Søren Kierkegaards Skuffelser, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967, pp. 54–63. Kjær, grethe, Søren Kierkegaards seks optegnelser om den Store Jordrystelse, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983, pp. 52–62. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950. poole, roger, “peter Christian Kierkegaard—the Bishop of aalborg,” in his Kierkegaard. The Indirect Communication, Charlottesville and london: university press of virginia 1993, pp. 282–7. rørdam, H.F. (ed.), Peter Rørdam Blade af hans Levnedsbog og Brevvexling, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1891–95, vol. 1, p. 79. thulstrup, niels, “the Brother peter Christian,” Kierkegaard as a Person, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 12), pp. 26–30. weltzer, Carl, “Biskop p.C. Kierkegaard. nogle linier i hans Bispegerning,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 6th series, vol. 4, 1942–44, pp. 436–534. —— Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1936.

Jacob Christian lindberg: an acceptable grundtvigian søren Jensen

From the end of the eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century denmark witnessed the phenomenon called the revival movement. it is a phenomenon that was found side by side in most european countries and—with the special characteristics that mark the individual areas and regions—had to a large degree a common distinguishing feature and purpose. it was a religious movement of common people, which, in opposition to a rationalist oriented theology and religiosity, sought more or less consciously to return to an older form of reformation Christianity. the revival movement had roots in pietism and was not represented exclusively by common people. academics—especially pastors—were involved, and where the theological university teachers had a positive relation to the revival, the theology, of course, had to be affected by it and was often closely tied to a confessional clamp-down. In Denmark the revival movement was first and foremost a movement of common people. individual pastors around the country sympathized with it and supported it, but at the beginning they were few in number. not even all the pastors who wished to confront the ruling rationalist theology and religiosity sympathized unconditionally with the revivalists. the foremost representative for the pastors was n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872), who during this period sought to formulate an alternative to the rationalist theology, along the lines of theological currents known from other countries. the popular element, which grundtvig’s project is to a large degree known for, was only successful later. at the beginning he was in fact an opponent of the popular revivalist movement and did not care for it.1 Grundtvig became to a large degree regarded by posterity as the main figure in the confrontation which in denmark is called the “kirkekamp” or “the church struggle,” which took place from the mid-1820s to the 1830s. grundtvig’s work The Church’s Rejoinder,2 which appeared 1825, was directed against the professor of theology, Henrik nicolai Clausen (1793–1877) and is regarded not only as a on this period in general, see Hal Koch, Tiden 1800–1848, vol. 6 in Den danske kirkes historie, vols. 1–8, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1954, especially pp. 189–323. the propagation of the movement is detailed in Vækkelsernes frembrud i Danmark i første halvdel af det 19. århundrede, vols. 1–7, ed. by anders pontoppidan thyssen, Åbenrå: Historisk samfund for sønderjylland 1977. 2 n.F.s. grundtvig, Kirkens Gjenmæle, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825. 1

212

Søren Jensen

signal work in the church struggle but also as its opening shot. However, this is not correct.3 the church struggle had already begun before grundtvig published his book, and the book should rather be seen as his attempt to formulate for himself a new theological and ecclesiastical position. From being grounded in the Bible, he realized that the church was built on “the little word from the lord’s own mouth,” namely, in harmony with the age’s orthodoxy—the apostles’ Creed at baptism. even if the work was highly polemical, for grundtvig it was a contribution to a theological discussion. Clausen, however, responded by bringing a legal case against him that he ultimately won in 1826. Grundtvig was sentenced to pay a fine and was subjected to censorship. prior to this he had resigned his position as pastor and had to a large extent lost the desire to participate further in the church struggle.4 in the following years the leader of the church struggle was one of grundtvig’s staunchest supporters, Jacob Christian lindberg.5 I. Lindberg’s Life lindberg was born in ribe, where his father, niels lindberg (1758–1830) was the chaplain at the Cathedral Church while also holding the office of parish pastor in the rural town of seem. niels lindberg was known for his love of discussion that bordered on the quarrelsome, and at the same time he was considerate and helpful toward the underprivileged in society, a character trait which he passed on to his son.6 in 1815 lindberg came to Copenhagen, entered the university and began to study theology.7 during lindberg’s time at the university—around 1817—a shift was see Kaj Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg. Studier over den grundtvigske bevægelses første kamp, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1958 (Kirkehistoriske Studier, series 2, no. 5), pp. 72–82. 4 see Jacob Christian lindberg, Bemærkninger i Anledning af Kirkens Gjenmæle, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandling 1825. 5 of the literature on lindberg one can mention the following: Fr. nielsen, “lindberg, Jacob Christian,” Dansk Biografisk Lexicon, vols. 1–19, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1896, vol. 10, pp. 303–306; Frederik nygaard, Jakob Chr. Lindberg. Den danske Kirkesags Forkæmper. Et Mindeskrift, odense: milo’ske Boghandels Forlag 1897; Carl weltzer, “lindberg, Jacob Christian,” Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–27, ed. by povl engelstoft, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz Forlag 1933–44, vol. 14, pp. 366–9. the main work on lindberg is the aforementioned Habilitation by Kaj Baagø, which builds on lindberg’s extensive archive and argues convincingly that he played a leading role in the church struggle. p.g. lindhardt, “lindberg, Jacob Christian,” Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–16, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979–84, vol. 9 (1981), pp. 53–5. 6 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 24. lindberg’s memoirs along with several letters and documents were published by his son niels lindberg under the title “af Jak. Kr. lindbergs papirer,” in Historisk Månedsskrift, vol. 1, 1883, pp. 37–64; pp. 230–48 and pp. 257–303; vol. 2, 1884 pp. 111–28; pp. 164–91 and pp. 193–237; vol. 3, 1884, pp. 280–316 and pp. 321–77; vol. 4, 1885, pp. 257–316; vol. 5, 1885, pp. 65–124 and pp. 326–77 and vol. 6, 1886, pp. 260–99. 7 lindberg was a highly respected student at ribe Katedralskole, which is evidenced by headmaster p.n. thorup’s testimony from september 15, 1815. already as a schoolboy he 3

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

213

taking place in theology. a so-called “transitional theology” consisting of philosophy of nature, Bible theology, and semi-rationalism, gained ground. all in all it must be said that the development went in a more orthodox Christian direction.8 transitional theology was represented in Copenhagen by the professor Jens møller (1779–1833), by whom Lindberg was for a time influenced. From his time at the university lindberg is remembered for having participated in a literary fight between the poets Adam Oehlenschläger (1779–1850) and Jens Baggesen (1764–1826) called the “conflict of the twelve,” because there were 12 students who supported Oehlenschläger. Grundtvig entered the conflict on Baggesen’s side at the request of lindberg. lindberg’s sympathy for grundtvig stems from this period.9 in december 1821 lindberg handed in his application for the pastor’s examination, along with material to be tested on which he included more than required. in addition to listing the entire old testament, he listed parts of the Bible in syric, Coptic, samaritan, and Caldic, and in January 1822 he became a theological Candidate with the highest grade. The first years after his candidate examination were promising. Bishop Friederich münter (1761–1830), who was an internationally recognized researcher, got lindberg engaged in numismatic and paleographic studies. He won great recognition for his scholarly work and made connections with some of the most learned european scholars in these areas. A university career seemed to be perfectly fitting for him. lindberg had a very practical disposition, and in connection with his studies he taught himself the art of woodcarving and copper engraving so that he could produce his own illustrations.10 as early as 1820, lindberg had become teacher of Hebrew—and later also of religion—at the Borgerdyd school in Christianshavn. (this is not to be confused with the school that søren Kierkegaard attended (1821–30), which was the Borgerdyd school in Klareboderne in the middle of Copenhagen.) in 1821 he also became a temporary teacher at the metropolitan school and a year later an adjunct. until his dismissal in 1830, lindberg’s income came from his teaching and the royalties from his books.11 read, in addition to the required reading, “a not an insignificant part of both the Greek and the latin authors.” see Bjørn Kornerup, Ribe Katedralskoles Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel nordisk Forlag 1952, vol. 2, pp. 332–3 and pp. 392–3. 8 see l. Koch, “dansk teologi i aarene 1801–25,” Teologiske Tidsskrift, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag, vol. 7, 1905–06, pp. 449–90. 9 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 32ff. 10 as an example of lindberg’s studies in numismatics one can mention his Commentatio de numis Punicis Sextorum olim Canacæ et Concanæ tributis, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1824, which was highly praised by wilhelm gesenius. 11 through the years lindberg published various textbooks and instructive manuals in Hebrew, including the following, which appear in Kierkegaard’s library: Hovedreglerne af den hebraiske Grammatik tilligemed Conjugations- og Declinations-Tabeller, 2nd printing, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1835 (ASKB 989); Fuldstændig grammatisk Analyse af de förste Capitler af Genesis, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1833 (ASKB 990); and Analytisk Hebraisk-Dansk Haand-Lexicon, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1835 (ASKB 991).

214

Søren Jensen

in 1828 lindberg became magister with a treatise on phoenician-greek inscriptions and was a strong candidate to become a professor. He maintained his interest in numismatics and paleography for the rest of his life.12 By this time he was already deeply involved in the church struggle. in a few works he had taken the side of grundtvig but engaged independently in the debate.13 in a commemorative article on occasion of the 100-year anniversary of lindberg’s birth, his daughter elise lindberg tells that lindberg, before the book What is Christianity in Denmark? appeared, had read the work aloud to his wife and said: “if this book is published, it will naturally turn the enemy’s anger towards me, and perhaps i will never become a professor. Can you bear the times which will then come?” my mother answered that she would share everything with lindberg, regardless of how the situation changed; he should act according to his conscience, and thus the book was published.14

it is doubtful that this story is true, but that lindberg’s engagement in the church struggle had as its consequence that he did not receive an appointment at the university is a fact and that his family’s financial situation during some periods was quite humble is also certain. when lindberg applied for the vacant professorship in eastern languages in 1826, he was turned down.15 as mentioned, after the libel case grundtvig withdrew from the church struggle and left the scene to lindberg and his colleagues, and the church struggle now became a confrontation between a lutheran orthodoxy and a mild form of rationalism and the religiosity stamped by it. in his struggle to return to the old lutheran Christianity and a practice, which rested on the ground of the reformation, lindberg used the obligation of the confessional writings as his weapon. The five confessional writings: the three from the old Church, the Confessio Augustana and luther’s short catechism were the foundation of the state Church’s faith and were still valid, and the pastors and the instructors at the theological Faculty were therefore bound by the theology of these confessional writings. nonetheless the university instructors demanded and practiced freedom of research, and there was, among the rationalist pastors, for example, a tendency to modify the rituals in accordance with a rationalist manner of thinking. examples of this were one pastor who omitted the renunciation of the devil in connection with the Creed at baptism and another who reformulated the words Jacob Christian lindberg, De inscriptione Melitensi Phoenicio-Græca commentatio, Copenhagen: tegnagel 1828. 13 in addition to that already mentioned, see also Jacob Christian lindberg, Den kongelige Lands-Overrets samt Hof- og Stads-Rets Kjendelse og Dom i Sagen Dr. Prof. Theol. H.N. Clausen contra Pastor N.F.S. Grundtvig, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandel 1826 and Hvad er Christendom i Danmark? Med Hensyn paa Professor Paulsens, Etatsraad Ørsteds og de danske Biskoppers Yttringer om de symbolske Bøgers Myndighed og Præste-Edens Betydning i Danmark, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandel 1826. 14 elise lindberg, “Jakob Christian lindberg. 1797—8. Januar—1897,” Højskolebladet, no. 2, 1897, column 37. lindberg married anna Cathrine elisabeth Hansen (1805–66) on april 7, 1826, and the ceremony was performed by grundtvig in vor Frelsers Kirke. 15 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 93. 12

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

215

of dismissal at the communion. lindberg found this unacceptable and regarded it as an attempt to modify the preaching to a humanistic measuring rod. He violently opposed this in various quite polemical short works and articles, whose style had such a character that he did not avoid legal cases being raised against him.16 the polemical style that lindberg employed contributed to making the church struggle popular. He was often happy to take part in the accusations which the revivalists in Copenhagen raised against the pastors for neglecting the rituals, by giving them legal support.17 during these years lindberg was a great irritation to the established ecclesiastical order and to the rationalist instructors at the university. His criticisms were direct and personal. after the book against Clausen had appeared in 1829, he was, the following year, dismissed from his position as adjunct at the metropolitan school, and in spite of vigorous attempts thereafter to obtain the office as pastor, he was unsuccessful for the next several years. lindberg realized in the interim that he had to give up the struggle to lead the state Church back in an old lutheran direction and to get the leaders of the Church to hold the pastors firm on the confessions. He therefore changed his tactics. From the beginning of the 1830s he took up, to a much higher degree than previously, grundtvig’s theology and ecclesiastical view and began instead to make the demand for greater freedom in the church. if grundtvig’s idea of dissolving the parish bond were carried through—that is, introducing the right to chose another pastor than the one in the parish where one lived, to carry out the church actions that one needed— then this would imply the possibility of remaining in the state Church. in addition, there were enough separatist tendencies in the religious milieu that lindberg frequented. nevertheless in the course of the 1830s he eventually ended by working to keep the Church together. previously, there had been plans to form a free congregation with grundtvig as pastor. the revivalists in Copenhagen had, as early as the 1820s, begun to meet for Bible and prayer meetings at private gatherings.18 the authorities kept a vigilant eye on these conventicles, not least of all out of fear of separatism. during a brief For example, Jacob Christian lindberg, Er Dr. Prof. Theol. H.N. Clausen en ærlig Lærer i den christne Kirke? Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1829; Beviis for, at Præsten Carl Holger Visby, Cappellan ved Vor Frelsers Kirke, er en falsk Lærer og Fjende af Christendommen i den danske Statskirke, indlagt i den kongelige Lands Over- samt Hofog Stads-Ret i Kjøbenhavn, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1832. this highly polemical work led to a court case which lasted several years and which ended with lindberg being convicted of slander and having to pay a fine. See Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 181ff.; p. 245. 17 see, for example, Skoemagermester Lars Jensens Klage til Hans Høiærværdighed Hr. Dr. P.E. Müller, Biskop over Sjællands Stift o.s.v. over Stiftsprovst H.G. Clausens Forhold ved Daaben i Frue Kirke i Kjøbenhavn paa Reformations-Festen d. 4 Nov 1832, ed. by J.C. lindberg, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag [1832]. 18 see Kaj Baagø, Vækkelse og kirkeliv i København og omegn i første halvdel af det 19. århundrede, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1960 (vol. 1, of Vækkelsernes frembrud i Danmark i første halvdel af det 19. århundrede), pp. 54ff. and pp. 65ff.; Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 154ff. 16

216

Søren Jensen

transition—from october 1831 to February 1832—lindberg was the leader of one such gathering called “the lime Burning assembly,” because they had their meetings in his private home, “lille rolighed,” which was near the lime burners in Østerbro. at the beginning grundtvig did not participate. as noted, he was skeptical about the divine assemblies and did not care for the pietism which was often expressed in this context.19 However, at the end of the 1820s grundtvig had several times argued that the government should give permission to form free congregations. it was with this goal in mind that lindberg held his meetings. He collected signatures for a petition to form a free congregation with grundtvig as pastor, and when the ministry rejected it in February of 1832, grundtvig joined lindberg’s assembly. on February 19 he gave a sermon about the workers in the wine garden, which was virtually a program manifesto for the times to come. in the sermon grundtvig spoke of “religion’s freedom and tolerance” and about “letting others keep, confess and plant their faith, not wanting to press ours on them, not hating them or hiding them from their faith.” His remarks that there was something “which is worth fighting for” and something which “is accomplished much better in peace,” were without doubt a commentary on lindberg and the way in which he had gone about the matter in the previous year.20 grundtvig also mentions that he would much rather be gathered with his friends in a church but that the conditions had forced him to meet in the assembly. in a church they would have the opportunity to be gathered around the sacraments and generally wanted such an arrangement to be “far more useful both to you and everyone.”21 after having considered the situation, the authorities gave grundtvig permission to preach in the Frederik’s Church in Christianshavn in the afternoon on sundays but without performing baptisms or administering the sacrament. after this lindberg’s assemblies were discontinued, and he became—like grundtvig—an advocate of the introduction of the dissolution of the parish bonds as a minimal condition for remaining in the state Church, but it was also clear that the state Church could thereby avoid being dissolved into any number of free churches. it can be said that the foundation for the accommodating dimension of the later people’s Church was laid here. in the latter half of the 1820s lindberg had not only made his opinion known in several short works which he published but also often in the journal Theologisk Maanedsskrift, which was founded by grundtvig and a.g. rudelbach (1792–1842) in 1825 and which produced 13 volumes until 1828. lindberg was a contributor to this journal right from the beginning. when the Maanedsskrift stopped, lindberg on his own began the publication of the Maanedsskrift for Christendom og Historie, n.F.s. grundtvig, “om gudelige Forsamlinger” (in Nik. Fred. Sev. Grundtvigs udvalgte Skrifter, vols. 1–9, ed. by Holger Begtrup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1904–06, vol. 4, pp. 365ff.), in which grundtvig defends the revivalist movement, but where he also says that the assemblies can be dominated by “a fanatic spirit” which “can be the occasion for crimes,” p. 369. 20 N.F.S. Grundtvigs prædikener. 1822–26 og 1832–39, vols. 1–12, ed. by Christian thodberg, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1984, vol. 5, p. 65. 21 ibid. p. 60. 19

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

217

which appeared from 1830 to 1832. this and especially the journal that he edited in the following years, Den Nordiske Kirke-Tidende, became important connecting links to the revivalists all around denmark. the Nordisk Kirke-Tidende to a large extent contributed to formulating the grundtvigian standpoint in a way that was comprehensible for the common people. the journal appeared for eight years from 1833 to 1840. it was dissolved when the authorities did not want to reduce the taxes for the journal’s distribution. lindberg continued his activities by publishing the journal Dannebroge (1841–42), but he gave up after a year.22 in the course of 1832 the church struggle faded away. lindberg continued to make a case for his version of Christianity, but he did so in other fields. lindberg’s connection to the revivalists was to a large extent strengthened after he in 1834 had taken a trip to Funen and Jutland. the trip was, moreover, a contributing cause to the authorities sharpening the prohibition against the conventicle gatherings.23 around the country there were a series of legal cases against laypeople for defying the prohibition, and in this connection Lindberg supported the revivalists first and foremost by means of his articles in the Nordisk Kirke-Tidende. lindberg was—just like grundtvig—in principle opposed to the divine assemblies, but he regarded them as a form of “emergency help” for the individual, that is, a manner of survival as a true Christian as long as church life had still not been reborn and the demand for freedom had not been met.24 When in the beginning of the 1830s Lindberg began to fight for ecclesiastical freedom as an alternative to a reformation of the state Church, he came in part to appear in the role as the popular mediator of grundtvig’s theology and view of the church, and in part to protect the state church against separatism. when in 1839 the Baptists formed their first congregation in Denmark, Lindberg fought against their views and general conception but not against their right to believe as they did.25 as Kierkegaard owned Theologisk Maanedsskrift (ASKB 346–351). in extension of lindberg’s journals the primary grundtvigian organ, Dansk Kirketidende, began to appear in 1845. Kierkegaard owned the first eight volumes (ASKB 321–325). if one can believe the surviving bookstore receipts, he owned none of lindberg’s journals. see H.p. rohde, “søren Kierkegaard som bogsamler,” Fund og forskning, Copenhagen: the royal library 1961, vol. 8, supplement vii–viii, pp. 116–27. we know, however, that he read some of lindberg’s articles in the Nordisk Kirke-Tidende. 23 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 250. 24 the expression “emergency aid” is taken from a letter from 1838, in which lindberg condemns the assemblies, if they want to be more than for edification: “when they want to be consolidated as institutions of edification for constant edification, then I in no way admire them but reckon them for nothing other than a self-made holiness of no good, something outside the lord’s order of salvation, and therefore outside his Kingdom.” Quoted from Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 279. Cf. Jacob Christian lindberg, Trykkefriheden eller Indlæg, Domme og Bilag i Sagen: Højesterets Advocat O.E. Høegh-Guldberg, som constitueret Generalfiscal, contra Magister J.C. Lindberg, Adjunct ved Metropolitanskolen, anlagt af det kongelige danske Cancellie, i Anledning af Skriftet: “Er Dr. Prof. Theol. H.N. Clausen en ærlig Lærer i den christne Kirke?” Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1830, where lindberg in agreement with this says that in the divine assemblies “all kinds of wryness, wrong attitude and fanaticism can easily arise and find nourishment,” pp. 203–4. 25 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 326ff. 22

218

Søren Jensen

grundtvigianism’s popular mediator, lindberg can be said to have made his greatest and most important impact in the area of the church. grundtvig himself had never been able to reach the people in this way.26 in 1837 lindberg began the publication of his own private Bible translation. it was a work which took many years. The translation was finished only two years before his death in 1856.27 lindberg’s Bible translation quickly appeared in a second printing and enjoyed a wide circulation in revivalist circles. in addition to the struggle for ecclesiastical freedom lindberg came to stamp the debate in the 1830s in many other areas. the rationalist pastors’ neglect of the rituals and Bishop Jakob peter mynster’s (1775–1854) initiative to create a new ritual book set lindberg into action at many levels in this context. similarly, lindberg participated in the debate about the Church government, a proposal that he strongly opposed.28 in the spring of 1842 lindberg took over the leadership of the assembly, which met in a room in Store Kongensgade, and he continued with this until he finally received a position as pastor in 1844.29 during his stay in Copenhagen in 1841–42, the later grundtvigian free school man, Christen Kold (1816–70), participated in this assembly. From a letter which Kold wrote to his former employer, the estate owner in Forballum in vestslesvig, Knud l. Knudsen (1806–66) one receives a clear impression of lindberg as preacher and interpreter of the Bible: among those men who in our land of birth have spoken the case of truth and justice, magister Lindberg is certainly not the least, and this man has it wonderfully with us, such that the better one gets to know him, the more respect one is inspired with. at this time he has assemblies where he explains the Bible, and he has now gone through genesis and thus exposed a matchless knowledge of scripture, together with the most natural and inward cordiality and innermost intimacy with our believing fathers’ course of thought and occupations, which i have ever been witness to. the other evening in particular he was surprised by his own emotions in a heart-gripping manner. He was speaking about the old Jacob, when he answered the pharaoh’s question about how old he was: “Few and dark were my days of life, and they do not reach the number of those of my fathers.” then lindberg broke out crying and could hardly stammer the words, “indeed, my friends! whoever of us has the vision of something more spiritual than the world in general, will in truth be able to say that few and dark were the days of his life.” i swear that it was as if old Jacob himself were standing there, and certainly Lindberg see nygaard, Jakob Chr. Lindberg. Den danske Kirkesags Forkæmper. Et Mindeskrift, p. 40: “if Jakob Chr. lindberg had not been in possession of this popular sense and the selfsacrificing habit he made of it, it is a question whether Grundtvig would not have failed to be understood by the Christian common man.” 27 Biblen eller den Christne Kirkes Hellige Skrift, trans. [and ed.] by Jac. Chr. lindberg, Copenhagen: Paa Udgiverens Forlag 1850. The first two parts are found in Kierkegaard’s library (ASKB 11) and were bought by Kierkegaard on september 11, 1850. see rohde, “søren Kierkegaard som bogsamler,” p. 122. 28 H.J.H. glædemark, Kirkeforfatningsspørgsmaalet i Danmark indtil 1874, Copenhagen: ejnar munksgaard 1948, pp. 113–14; p. 307. 29 Baagø, Vækkelse og kirkeliv i København og omegn i første halvdel af det 19. århundrede, pp. 144–5. 26

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

219

saw all of his troubles painted before his eyes in this moment; for poverty is a hard cross, and l’s need is now certainly at its most acute, he has—as you certainly know—recently applied for a position as pastor but still not received it.30

in January 1844 the King named lindberg parish pastor in tingsted on the island of Falster. He was also active here. He was autocratic in the performance of his duties and at loggerheads with his bishop. He supported the smallholders and during the cholera epidemic in 1853 made a great personal effort to take care of the sickest patients.31 From having been a defender of absolute royal power, lindberg—like grundtvig—became the man of democracy after the system change, and he asserted himself as a spokesman of the people. in 1853 he was elected as a representative to the Folketing or parliament and was thereafter re-elected to this post, which he held until his death.32 in 1857 lindberg managed to obtain a position in lille lyngby and Ølsted not far from Copenhagen. But even before his wife had moved into the vicarage, he became ill and died of typhoid on december 10 of the same year.33 lindberg’s widow moved to Frederiksberg, where she died nine years later in 1866. in a speech at her funeral, Frederik Helveg (1816–1901) said that even if it was not the woman’s calling to be a preacher, nonetheless a woman can yet be placed in a relation to preaching. and this woman was that as the wife of Jakob Kristian Lindberg. the man’s life and affairs are not equally apparent, in spite of the fact that even in the most apparent there is much which only god sees. we say then that Jakob Kristian lindberg’s activity not only in a small circle or in any case in the small circle of the congregation of Christ, as it is called in danish, has become well known and unforgettable. He has a great activity with respect to the way that leads to life, and although it is not completed or overgrown among us, we must name lindberg among those to whom, after our lord, it is due. many others do too, all those who hold firmly to the words of faith in baptism as the ground of salvation—but none of us thinks of what part woman, precisely this woman has had in it, but at least we have perhaps thought of it in relation to her.34

there can be no doubt that many times and in many ways great demands were placed on ane Cathrine lindberg by being married to Jacob Christian lindberg. draft of a letter quoted from Rejsen til Smyrna. Christen Kolds Dagbog 1842–1847, ed. by Hanne engberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1979, pp. 85–6. 31 Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 362. 32 victor elberling, Rigsdagens Medlemmer gennem hundrede Aar 1848–1948, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz, vol. 2, p. 21. 33 grundtvig buried lindberg in the cemetery of Frederiksberg Kirke. see “ved doctor lindbergs Jordefærd (18 decbr. 1857),” Budstikken, no. 2, January 15, 1858, pp. 33–7, where it reads (p. 35): “i know few or no one since the days of doctor martin luther, who with such great faithfulness and zeal, and with so much strength, industry and tirelessness, as doctor Jakob Christian lindberg, walked in the beloved footsteps on the thorn-strewn way.” 34 Frederik Helveg, “ved Fru ane Cathrine elisabeth lindbergs Jordefærd, den 10. decbr. 1866,” Dansk Kirketidende, 1866, columns 840–1. 30

220

Søren Jensen

it is correct that in the later accounts of the church struggle lindberg played a modest role compared to grundtvig, but there were nevertheless several people who understood his real importance. it is also true that grundtvig later in his Kirkespejl, at lindberg’s expense, places himself in a somewhat more prominent position than he actually had while the church struggle was going on, but Kierkegaard had an eye for this absurdity and the absurdity in the consequences that lindberg had to bear by placing himself first.35 II. Lindberg and Kierkegaard It is not known precisely when Kierkegaard for the first time came into contact with lindberg, but it is probable that the acquaintance was made because lindberg had an association with peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88). we know that lindberg visited the family home in nytorv.36 in any case the connection had to do with the interest in grundtvig, which Kierkegaard had in his younger days. Kierkegaard owned a number of grundtvig’s works and was well acquainted with his writings. throughout his life he managed “to keep up a kind of elated intercourse with” grundtvig.37 and already as a very young man, Kierkegaard turned up at the evening service in Frederik’s Church after grundtvig had resumed his preaching there.38 this view is presented by niels Johansen (Jubeloldingen Biskop Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvigs 80-aarige Fødselsdag den 8de September 1863, Copenhagen: H.C. nissen [1863], p. 10), and it is also defended by Frederik nygaard (nygaard, Jakob Chr. Lindberg. Den danske Kirkesags Forkæmper. Et Mindeskrift, p. 40) and by Johannes pedersen (“Fra den kirkelige polemiks overdrev. Jacob Christian lindberg,” Dansk teologisk tidsskrift, 1955, p. 19). It is also the thesis which in detail is confirmed by Kaj Baagø in his dissertation. 36 Carl weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1936, p. 41. see Jørgen Bukdahl, “the shadow of Jacob Christian lindberg,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2001, pp. 19–26 (originally as “lindbergs skygge,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vols. 9–10), pp. 22–8). 37 SKS 21, 55, nB:6. 38 in F. rønning’s biography, Carl Joakim Brandt (Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1892) it is mentioned in connection with the discussion of the church service in the Frederik’s Church that “a face that one sometimes could see out there was s. Kierkegård’s,” p. 20. it is not known where rønning has this information from, but it is not from Brandt’s diaries. see En dansk students dagbog. C.J. Brandts optegnelser 1835–1845, ed. by anders monrad møller, Copenhagen: Falcon 2006. we have an older witness to Kierkegaard’s participation in the spiritual life here and at that time in Johansen, Jubeloldingen Biskop Nicolai Frederik Severin Grundtvigs, p. 11, where he writes: “Here Candidate søren aaby Kirkegaard should also be named, who, to be sure, entirely still and unnoticed, heard grundtvig in the assemblies and speeches he gave at the Kalkbrænderiet.” the statement contains a number of imprecise points. Kierkegaard at this point in time was not yet a candidate, and grundtvig only a single time gave a sermon at the assembly on Kalkbrænderivej, and Kierkegaard could hardly have been present there. However, this does not mean that there is no truth to what Johansen writes. He could easily have met Kierkegaard at an evening song in Frederik’s Church. 35

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

221

there is also testimony that Kierkegaard visited lindberg’s home. even if lindberg had limited means, he showed hospitality and opened his home once a week to university students.39 that Kierkegaard came into this circle is evidenced by a diary entry by peter Christian Kierkegaard from may of 1838: “søren...is now beginning, praise god, to come closer not only to individual Christians, for example, lindberg, but to Christianity in general.”40 in her memoirs elise lindberg writes that she remembered Kierkegaard from her childhood home: “while we were living in aleenberg [in Frederiksberg] many of father’s young friends came to visit us. i thus remember dr. Kjerkegaard and søren Kjerkegaard....” she continues, “of all the men who came into my home, i liked the brothers Kjerkegaard the best, and of these søren best of all, partly because he was always lively and playful, partly because he often gave me a grocer’s fig or some such sweet things.”41 the lindberg family’s acquaintance with søren Kierkegaard is also confirmed by Lindberg’s son Niels Lindberg (1829–86), who in a letter to Peter Christian Kierkegaard from 1866 writes: “i remember him well from my childhood, when, on his walks through Frederiksberg allé, he [søren Kierkegaard] always had a friendly word for us children, or when (most likely on an errand from father to your reverence) we came to nytorv 2, where he often gave us prunes or a shilling for a pastry.”42 even though these two recollections were written down later—in the one case almost 60 years later and in the other almost 30—it is very probable that the recollection is correct. søren Kierkegaard’s attention to the children was unusual, and this is the reason that it is remembered. In any case, both memories confirm the connection between lindberg and Kierkegaard. A. Lindberg in Kierkegaard’s Writings The first time that Lindberg is mentioned by Kierkegaard is in an entry on a loose paper entitled “some observations on grundtvig’s theory of the Church,” dated may 28, 1835.43 From this, it is evident that during his time as a university student

elise lindberg, “Jakob Kristjan lindberg,” Højskolebladet (Kolding), 1888, column 1325; nygaard, Jakob Chr. Lindberg. Den danske Kirkesags Forkæmper. Et Mindeskrift, p. 73. 40 Quoted from Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 1996, p. 143. (Translation slightly modified.) 41 elise lindberg’s private archive, no. 5887 in rigsarkivet. Oplevelser Nedskrevne af Elise Lindberg 1899, p. 8. nygaard, Jakob Chr. Lindberg. Den danske Kirkesags Forkæmper. Et Mindeskrift, p. 73. 42 Encounters with Kierkegaard, ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, p. 19. 43 Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. the entry itself has not been preserved. in may and June 1835 lindberg gave lectures on the old testament at the university, and at the same time gave an account of his fundamental theological view: “i have shown in a lecture that it is not rigorous science which carries the church, but the church which carries science; ...in another lecture i analyzed how the apostles’ Creed is the only valid rule of interpretation.” lindberg in a letter to Christian Østergaard on may 14, 1835. “nogle Breve fra Jak. Kr. lindberg, 39

222

Søren Jensen

Kierkegaard was interested in grundtvig’s theology and his “matchless discovery,” and that he informed himself about what lindberg had written in this context. In his remarks Kierkegaard is first surprised that Grundtvig does not start out from the communion but instead in baptism, when what is at issue is the church’s—the actual church’s—foundation. Baptism was an act that “had to take place first” while the communion was “something real.” the church is not formed by the repetition of the words of institution since it is already in advance “something real.” in baptism the church, to be sure, comes into being for the one baptized, but nonetheless Kierkegaard thinks that it would have been better to take as the point of departure the place where it already existed and not where it “should take place first.” For Kierkegaard, it also seems to be more fitting to take the point of departure in the communion because the new testament gives a “far more detailed” account of the communion than of baptism. as basis for the communion we have the story and the words of institution passed on “from the very lips of the Lord.” It is far more difficult to prove that the confession of faith consists in the original words of institution uttered at the baptism ceremony. nonetheless it was crucial for grundtvig to maintain the precise wording of the confession of faith as a measuring rod for what Christian faith is, “something which lindberg has also done very consistently.”44 Critics of the theory of the church have also demanded that this should be done, and Kierkegaard mentions that lindberg in his argumentation shifts the burden of proof from himself to the critics, claiming that “it was up to others to prove that the creed was not the original.”45 That the Apostolic Creed was only known for the first time during the fourth century, lindberg writes, is due to the fact that it was kept

meddelt i udtog,” Nordisk Månedsskrift, 1881–82, p. 94. it is not improbable that Kierkegaard attended the aforementioned lectures. 44 Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. For example in “om den christne troes-Bekjendelses Form i den sidste udgave af den danske alterbog,” Den Nordiske Kirke-Tidende, nos. 49–50, 1834, columns 817–32 and 844–8, where lindberg defends the traditional formulation of the apostolic Creed and uses the greek original text and not the latin text which lindberg claims the new service book does, columns 820–1. see also Jacob Christian lindberg, Historiske Oplysninger om den danske Kirkes symbolske Bøger, Copenhagen: schubothes Boghandling 1830, pp. 68–9. there is an undated series of notes on this book in Kierkegaard’s hand (Pap. i C 2 in Pap. Xii, pp. 17–20). Heiberg and Kuhr suggest that it was written in 1831–32. niels thulstrup estimates that it was written between 1831 and 1834. the largest part of the notes concern the discussion of the apostolic Creed and is a proof that Kierkegaard as a student was interested in a grundtvigian’s view of “the matchless discovery.” 45 Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. lindberg is convinced that “we still have the apostles’ Creed wholly in the meaning that it had from the beginning” and that one can therefore demand proof from those who have a different opinion. “Historical testimony must decide the dispute, and if one can then bring in such valid witnesses for the new claim, then it is clear that we must admit that they are right.” lindberg, Historiske Oplysninger, p. 52; p. 51. “therefore one must finally exclusively leave to the enemies of the Christian faith and Church to make such a claim, and when they do so, ask them to prove its validity,” Jacob Christian lindberg, “om Hans Højærværdigheds Hr. Biskop dr. r. møllers og Hr. pastor C.C. Boisens offentlige yttringer om daabs-pagten,” Nordisk Kirke-Tidende, no. 11, 1834, columns 171–2.

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

223

secret at the beginning. “on the point that it is not found in the oldest Church fathers, magister lindberg observed that they kept it secret.”46 Kierkegaard is clearly not in agreement with grundtvig and lindberg, but he is nonetheless not completely dismissive. He juxtaposes his view to that of grundtvigians, who believe that the church stands and falls with the claim that the apostolic Creed is used in the original form and says: “the Church essentially expresses itself at the concrete moment in its confessions, and these consequently are to be regarded as mileposts on the way of Christian development.”47 this statement, however, cannot be without influence from the Grundtvigian “theory.” B. Lindberg in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript In the last of the first series of pseudonymous books, the Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments by Johannes Climacus from 1846, Lindberg is discussed in the first part. The long book is divided into two parts: a very short first part, “The Objective Issue of The Truth of Christianity,”48 and a very long second part, “the subjective issue, the subjective individual’s relation to the truth of Christianity, or Becoming a Christian,”49 where Climacus gives an account of his own view. The first part constitutes the actual postscript: “The first part is the promised sequel; the second part is a renewed attempt in the same vein as the pamphlet, a new approach to the issue of Fragments.”50 The first chapter of the first part, “The Historical Point of View,”51 is divided into three paragraphs, each of which treats the classical arguments for faith: “§ 1 Holy scripture,” about the Bible, “§ 2 the Church,” which is particularly interested in the grundtvigian theory, and “§ 3 the evidence of the Centuries for the truth of Christianity,” which treats the historical argument. after having described the bankruptcy of Bible theology in § 1—no differently from grundtvig’s view—he goes on in § 2 to discuss “the matchless discovery.” the roman Church’s ecclesiastical alternative to a biblically founded theology is mentioned but not treated further. First, the question is raised about how grundtvig’s discovery has a relation to others, for example, Ferdinand delbrück (1772–1848) and gotthold ephraim lessing (1729–81), but Climacus ironically gives grundtvig all the credit for the matchlessness in the discovery, even if Kierkegaard certainly knew that the matchlessness was not about the discovery and grundtvig, but has to do with what was unique in the contemporaneity with Christ, which is achieved by the words of the apostolic Creed which were said at the baptismal fount. Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. lindberg, Historiske Oplysninger, p. 53: “of the many expressions of the Fathers of the Church it is obvious that the Creed was kept secret, not only from the infidel heathens but even from those who were [instructed] in the preparation for entry into Christianity.” 47 Pap. i a 60 / JP 5, 5089. 48 SKS 7, 27–61 / CUP1, 19–57. 49 SKS 7, 63–559 / CUP1, 59–616. 50 SKS 7, 26 / CUP1, 17. 51 SKS 7, 30 / CUP1, 23. 46

224

Søren Jensen

after this Climacus emphasizes lindberg at the expense of grundtvig. “if it had at least been said that the sagacious, dialectical magister lindberg, the gifted attorney general and guardian of the matchless discovery, was possibly indebted to lessing, that would be something.”52 with his parodying criticism, Climacus distances himself greatly from grundtvig in this paragraph, but he recognizes that grundtvig realized that the Bible was not able to “withstand the invading doubt,”53 just as he recognizes the passion which drove grundtvig, but he cannot accept that the solution to the problem is kept in the objective sphere.54 with a reference to chapters iv and v of Philosophical Fragments, where the problem of contemporaneity is treated, Climacus recognizes here in the Postscript that this problem in a certain sense can be overcome by means of “the matchless discovery.” “The difficulty...seems to be cancelled by the Church, which is indeed something present. on this point grundtvig’s theory has merit,” and he adds: it has been developed, particularly by lindberg, with skilled, juridical keenness, that the Church eliminates all proving and demonstrating that was required in connection with the Bible, since that is something past, whereas the Church is something present. to demand from it a demonstration that it exists, says lindberg correctly, is nonsense, like demanding from a living person a demonstration that he exists. lindberg is entirely right in this matter and has the merit of imperturbability and clarifying assurance with which he sticks to a point.55

the church exists, and from that which the church believes it is apparent what is Christian. to this extent Climacus can follow grundtvig’s train of thought, for if one says this, one is free to be able to present a historical proof, which in reality does not give certainty for what is at issue. But now the church is also called apostolic and designated as the historical church. to be Christian is thus more than to be present, which is also to be something past, and, in opposition to the present, which does not need to be proven, the past requires proof. Climacus is surprised that such an experienced dialectician as lindberg has not noticed this. when some historical element is mixed in the “theory of the church,” we are right back at the problem of “the theory of the Bible.” that lindberg had brought this on himself Climacus shows with an example: “once when a dispute arose about whether it is more correct to say ‘i believe in a Christian Church’ or ‘i believe there is a Christian Church,’ he himself had recourse to old books in order to demonstrate when the faulty variant had happened.”56 in SKS 7, 43 / CUP1, 36. see Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 210–14. SKS 7, 43 / CUP1, 37. 54 in a preliminary draft to the Postscript there is a longer parody of grundtvig, which is omitted in the published edition. However, there are also here some appreciative remarks. grundtvig is appreciated as a hymn writer, and Kierkegaard writes that he “as a witnessing person who, powerfully moved in immediate passion, has worked day and night with rare perseverance, as a man with a very great deal of knowledge, even if it is not always exactly under control—Grundtvig will always maintain his significance.” Pap. vi B 29 p. 101–2 / CUP2, 16–17. 55 SKS 7, 45 / CUP1, 38–9. 56 SKS 7, 47 / CUP1, 41. 52 53

Jacob Christian Lindberg: An Acceptable Grundtvigian

225

the note to this passage Climacus writes that lindberg’s behavior in the mentioned debate reminded one of “the learned efforts of a concerned biblical exegesis,” but adds that he has never been “able to detect anything sophistical in lindberg’s procedure.” in the printed manuscript to this note, an assessment of the difference between lindberg and grundtvig was added, which is largely in agreement with the comparison at the end of the paragraph: so the difference between these two men is this: lindberg is a bright, intelligent head, with rare learning and rare dialectical perseverance, who with his wise moderation has been a ministering spirit; grundtvig, on the other hand, is as a thinker a confused genius who gets carried away from himself into the heights, the depths, the world-historical. in the circumstances of their lives, the difference has always been that lindberg has been ridiculed, mocked, insulted on all occasions, probably because his power has really been felt, and grundtvig has enjoyed an inane recognition under the obscure categories: genius, seer, bard, prophet.57

in the second part of the Postscript Climacus develops his theology of subjectivity. “Christianity is precisely a matter of spirit and of subjectivity and of inwardness.”58 In agreement with this, he criticizes here in the first part every form of distancing in the faith relation, every objectivization or “approximation” and every historical approach to faith. in Climacus’ view, the advocates of “the matchless discovery” stopped here. “accordingly, the Church theory, compared with the Bible theory, had the merit of eliminating the later-historical and turning the historical into the present. But this merit promptly disappears as soon as the more specific qualifications enter the picture.”59 one can only achieve an approximate certainty about a historical event. if one has “passion enough to grasp the importance of one’s eternal happiness,” one would for this reason despair that this something historical was decisive for it. But as a human being, who is not himself Christian but knows what Christianity means, Climacus does not want to say any more: “i have no opinion of my own but, imaginatively constructing, simply present the issue.”60 Climacus concludes the paragraph by thanking grundtvig and expressing his admiration for his efforts at the same time as he declares that he is “in disagreement” with him. “No one wishing to know definitely where he stands could possibly wish to have grundtvig for an ally, especially a person who does not wish to stand where there is commotion, especially when the commotion is the only more specific definition of where he stands.”61 in the comparison of lindberg and grundtvig, Climacus again emphasizes lindberg at the expense of grundtvig: as for magister lindberg, he is such a richly knowledgeable man and such a seasoned dialectician that as an ally he is always a great gain and as a foe always makes the battle difficult for one—yet also enjoyable, because he is a skilled fencer who hits home but 57 58 59 60 61

Pap. vi B 98:14 / CUP2, 29. SKS 7, 48 / CUP1, 43. SKS 7, 47 / CUP1, 41–2. SKS 7, 50–1 / CUP1, 45. SKS 7, 51 / CUP1, 46.

Søren Jensen

226

does not slay absolutely, so that the survivor readily convinces himself that it was not he who has been slain but rather some enormous absoluteness. it has always seemed to me an injustice to lindberg that while pastor grundtvig receives a certain amount per annum in offerings of admiration and incidental income from the worshiping party membership, lindberg, on the other hand, has had to stand in the shade. and yet it is in truth something, and something that can with truth be said of lindberg, that he has a good head on his shoulders; however, what in truth all this is said about grundtvig is highly dubious, that he is a seer, bard, skald, prophet, with an almost matchless outlook upon world history and with one eye for the profound.62

to this extent one does not need to doubt Climacus’ (or Kierkegaard’s) sincerity in the judgment of lindberg, which incidentally is to a large extent correct, but it is quite probable that Climacus/Kierkegaard also amused himself by teasing grundtvig, by ascribing to him a secondary position in relation to the dissemination of the grundtvigian view of Christianity and by unmistakably making known that he thought that lindberg, and not grundtvig, should have the honor for this. as is evident from the above-quoted text, which was not printed in the Postscript,63 Kierkegaard was aware of the financially difficult situation that the Lindberg family lived under as a result of the choice that lindberg had made when he, in the mid1820s, followed grundtvig. But from this it is too much to say straightforwardly, as Carl weltzer claims, that much “points to the fact that the Kierkegaardian background for his portrayal of the witness to the truth is largely magister i.C. lindberg’s both proud and bitter fate.” However, weltzer is undoubtedly correct when he writes that “more than all the other grundtvigian churchmen, magister Jacob Christian Lindberg has had an influence on Søren Kierkegaard.”64 and it is also true that a man like lindberg, who passionately worked for a cause and in this connection put his existence at stake, won Kierkegaard’s complete sympathy. Translated by Jon Stewart

SKS 7, 51–2 / CUP1, 46. the second part of this quotation is the motto in Baagø’s dissertation. see Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, p. 15. 63 Pap. vi B 98:14. 64 Carl weltzer, Grundtvig og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1952, p. 33. 62

Bibliography I. Lindberg’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Biblen eller den Christne Kirkes Hellige Skrift, trans. [and ed.] by Jacob Christian lindberg, Copenhagen: paa udgiverens Forlag 1850 (ASKB 11). “om folkelig oplysning,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 3, no. 108, 1847, columns 53–4 (ASKB 321–325). Hovedreglerne af den hebraiske Grammatik tilligemed Conjugations- og Declinations-Tabeller udgivne til Brug ved Skole-Underviisningen, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1835 (ASKB 989). Fuldstændig grammatisk Analyse af de förste Capitler af Genesis, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1833 (ASKB 990). Analytisk Hebraisk-Dansk Haand-Lexicon udgiven til Brug for de lærde Skoler, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1835 (ASKB 991). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Lindberg Ørsted, anders sandøe, Af mit Livs og min Tids Historie, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandling 1851–1852 (vols. 3–4, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57), vol. 1, p. 103 (ASKB 1959–1960). rudelbach, andreas g., Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historiskkritiske Undersøgelser, vol. 1, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1854, p. 445 (vol. 2, 1856) (ASKB 193). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Lindberg Bukdahl, Jørgen, “the shadow of Jacob Christian lindberg,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, Cambridge: william B. erdmans publishing Company 2001, pp. 19–26. (originally as “lindbergs skygge,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961 (Søren Kierkegaard Selskabets Populære Skrifter, vols. 9–10), pp. 22–8.) egelund møller, a., “søren Kierkegaard og Jacob Christian lindberg,” in his Søren Kierkegaard om politik, Copenhagen: Forlaget strand 1975, pp. 57–61. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug 1950, see p. 18; p. 22; p. 72; p. 78; p. 139; pp. 143–4; p. 159.

228

Søren Jensen

thulstrup, niels, Commentary on Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by robert J. widenmann, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1984, see pp. 125ff.; p. 178; p. 184; pp. 189ff. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard. Afsluttende uvidenskabelige Efterskrift, ed. with introduction and commentaries by niels thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1962.)

Hans lassen martensen: a speculative theologian determining the agenda of the day Curtis l. thompson

søren aabye Kierkegaard had a fascinating relationship with Hans lassen martensen (1808–84). martensen was an important source for Kierkegaard’s development as a religious thinker. Kierkegaard carefully attended to martensen and received information that helped determine his agenda. this article will introduce martensen as a thinker, account for Kierkegaard’s sources of information about martensen, and interpret Kierkegaard’s use of martensen as a source for his thinking and writing. I. General Introduction to Martensen and His Literary Production this brief overview of Hans lassen martensen that is a general introduction to his life and work will familiarize the reader with a danish contemporary of Kierkegaard who greatly influenced his thinking, even though the two never really saw things eye-to-eye.1 martensen showed great promise as a student from early on. an 1833 essay, “an attempt at a response to the theological prize subject,” responded to the question “what is the basis of natural theology, its scope, and its relation to positive theology?”2 The influence of Hegel is clearly evidenced in this work, which affirms For a very good overview of martensen’s life and thought see Jon stewart’s “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin and new york: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 106–45, and especially pp. 116– 29. see also my “introduction,” in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard: Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. and ed. by Curtis l. thompson and david J. Kangas, atlanta: scholars press 1997, pp. 1–71, and especially “an intellectual Biography of martensen,” pp. 5–17. 2 Forsøg til en Besvarelse af den theologisk Priisopgave, unpublished handwritten manuscript dated december 1833, in the martensen archives of the royal library, Ny kongelig Samling, 3434, 4. skat arildsen, H.L. Martensen, Hans Liv, Udvikling og Arbejde, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1932, pp. 59–72 and robert leslie Horn, Positivity and Dialectic: A Study of the Theological Method of Hans Lassen Martensen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 2), pp. 44–55, have considered this essay very carefully. 1

230

Curtis L. Thompson

the Christian faith as an objective reality that relativizes the autonomous endeavors of the subjectively speculating thinker. the early months of 1834 found the young martensen taking on the task of tutoring a theological student, one Søren Kierkegaard, who was five years younger.3 during these same months of tutoring Kierkegaard, martensen was writing an article published in July 1834 as a critical review of an argument for the Johannine authorship of the revelation.4 He calls for a critical reading of the book of revelation that does not take it literally but interprets it in relation to its historical context. this last book of the Bible should be regarded as apocalyptic poetry that discloses truth concerning the idea shining through empirical events of history. awarded a travel scholarship, martensen left his homeland in the autumn of 1834 for a two-year study trip that enabled him to further his education at the feet of many of germany’s leading scholars.5 a piece martensen published while on his study trip abroad, written in german, analyzed Faust, a work by lenau, the poetic name of the austrian poet whose full name was Franz niembsch edler von strehlenau (1802–50).6 since lenau’s Faust was an apocalyptic poem, martensen’s writing on this work occasioned further reflections on apocalyptic poetry, and once back in denmark he revised the essay and published it in Heiberg’s Perseus.7 Home from his study trip, martensen set to work on his dissertation in the winter of 1836–37, defending it successfully on July 12, 1837.8 the dissertation was written

For an account of this encounter, see Hans lassen martensen, Af mit Levnet. Meddelelser, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1882–83, vol. 1, p. 78. For the english translation see Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, ed. and trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1996, p. 196. 4 Hans lassen martensen, “e.g. Kolthoff, Apocalypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicate,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 12, 1834, pp. 1–31. 5 Herman Brandt, Gotteserkenntnis und Weltentfremdung. Der Weg der speculativen Theologie Hans Lassen Martensens, göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht 1971, p. 34, summarizes the “envious series” of personal acquaintances made by martensen during these years 1834–36: “Claus Harms in Kiel, marheinecke, steffens, gossner, droysen, göschel in Berlin, tieck in dresen, daub, both of Hegel’s sons, H.e.g. paullus in Heidelberg, d. Fr. strauss, F.Chr. Baur, l. uhland in tübingen, in munich Baader, schelling, g.H.v. schubert, J.v. görres, and no doubt, also Julius Hamberger. then, in the winter of 1835–36 the friendship with Lenau, in connection with which Martensen’s first booklet Ueber Lenaus Faust originated, and finally, in Paris, the meeting with Mr. and Mrs. J.L. Heiberg.” 6 Johannes m....n [H.l. martensen], Ueber Lenau’s Faust, stuttgart: J.g. Cotta 1836. 7 the work by Franz niembsch’s pseudonym nikolaus lenau is Faust. ein Gedicht (stuttgart and tübingen: J.g. Cotta 1836), and it is considered by martensen in his Ueber Lenau’s Faust, and in the danish rewriting of that work, “Betragtninger over ideen af Faust, med Hensyn paa lenaus Faust,” published in J.l. Heiberg’s Perseus, vol. 1, 1837, pp. 91–165 and printed in Julius martensen, Mindre Skrifter og Taler af Biskop Martensen. Udgivne med en Oversight over hans Forfattervirksomhed, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1885, pp. 29–88. 8 Den Danske Kirkes Historie, vols. 1–8, ed. by Hal Koch and Bjørn Kornerup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950–66, vol 6 (1954), p. 328 and morten Borup, Johan Ludwig Heiberg, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1946, vol. 2, p. 175. 3

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

231

in latin and translated four years later into danish.9 this writing on autonomy examines carefully the philosophy of Kant and the theology of schleiermacher, finding both thinkers guilty of not operating out of a fully theonomous perspective. these two thinkers have shortchanged the concept of personality as concerns both the divine and the human. Hegel’s understanding of Absolute Spirit is briefly discussed at the end of the dissertation. one encounters here a call to go beyond the Hegelian viewpoint, because it espouses an understanding of autonomy that grants too much room to the creature and does not finally confess that true autonomy is only God’s. Besides working on his dissertation, martensen also wrote a review of a lecture on Hegel’s logic that J.l. Heiberg had given, and this was published in 1836.10 the young academic had met the Heibergs in paris, and the encounter had gone well. martensen stood in agreement with Heiberg that Hegelian philosophy, as the worldview that best comprehends the scientific nature of the day, is dismissed at one’s own peril. and yet, the reviewer insists that Hegel ought not be appropriated without criticism, since rationalism is unable to capture the full range of life: poetry and religion give expression to ways of thinking that simply cannot be exhaustively comprehended by any rational philosophical system, because there are elements of life that elude the system.11 a month after the approval of his dissertation martensen was appointed to lecture as part of the Faculty of theology. in his lecturing, especially important to martensen was the history of modern philosophy from Kant to Hegel, for this intellectual tradition provided the background for comprehending the new speculative approach to theology that he believed was demanded by the contemporary situation. His three sets of lectures from 1837 to 1839—“introductory lectures to speculative dogmatics,”12 “lectures on the History of philosophy from Kant to Hegel,”13 and “lectures on speculative dogmatics”14—were extremely popular.

Hans lassen martensen, De autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticum nostri temporis introducta, Copenhagen: i.d. Qvist 1837 (ASKB 648). (danish translation: Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, trans. by l.v. petersen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 651); english translation: The Autonomy of Human Self-Consciousness in Modern Dogmatic Theology, in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 73–147.) 10 Hans lassen martensen, “J.l. Heiberg: indledningsforedrag til det i november 1834 begyndte logiske Cursus paa den kongelige militaire Høiskole, Maanedsskrift for Litteratur,” no. 14, 1836, pp. 515–28. (english translation: Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course, in Introductory Lecture to the Logic Course and Other Texts, trans. and ed. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 3), pp. 39–72.) 11 ibid., p. 525 (cited in Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new york: Cambridge university press 2003, pp. 479–80). 12 SKS 19, 125–43, not 4.3–4.12 / JP 5, 5277. 13 Pap. ii C 12–24 in Pap. Xii, pp. 280–331 / JP 5, 5353. 14 SKS 18, 374–86, KK:11 / KJN 2, 342-52 . Pap. ii C 26–7 in Pap. Xiii, pp. 3–43. Pap. ii C 28 in Pap. Xiii, pp. 44–116 / JP 5, 5299. 9

232

Curtis L. Thompson

the revised essay on lenau’s Faust written in danish and published in 1837 had included a long introduction on apocalyptic poetry.15 such poetry strives to represent the speculative Idea, the principle of history that is finally about freedom. the Faust-poem gives artistic expression to a theological vision whose disclosure of the world’s nullity anticipates the judgment of the end and manifests a religious nihilism. Closely related to the Faust writing in aesthetics are two other articles, both reviews of Heiberg’s creative productions. in 1838 martensen published his review of two of Heiberg’s plays, Alferne, and Fata Morgana, although the focus falls on the latter.16 the discussion of irony and comedy is continued three years later in 1841 with martensen’s review of Heiberg’s New Poems.17 again apocalyptic poetry is depicted as the artistic means of bringing emancipation, with the focus in this review falling on Heiberg’s classic “a soul after death: an apocalyptic Comedy.” during these years martensen was establishing a home and family. on december 22, 1838 he married mathilde Helene Hess; after nine years of marriage, this daughter of a ship captain died, leaving him with two children, Julius and marie. in 1839 he published an article on logic that was responding to an article Bishop Jakob peter mynster had written.18 in 1840, the year he was promoted to the rank of professor extraordinarius or associate professor at Copenhagen university, he published a work on medieval mysticism,19 one of the earliest serious academic see Julius martensen, Mindre Skrifter and Taler af Biskop Martensen. Udgivne med en Oversigt over hans Forfattervirksomhed, pp. 27–54. For a helpful discussion of this work, see george pattison, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2002, pp. 101–3. 16 Hans lassen martensen, “Fata morgana. eventyr-Comedie af J.l. Heiberg,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 19, 1838, pp. 361–97. george pattison summarizes Fata Morgana, in Kierkegaard: The Aesthetic and the Religious, new york: st. martin’s press 1992, pp. 18–21. 17 martensen’s review, “Nye Digte af J.l. Heiberg,” appeared in Fædrelandet, vol. 2, no. 398 (January 10), 1841, columns 3205–12; no. 399 (January 11), 1841, columns 3213–20 and no. 400 (January 12), 1841, columns 3221–4. see pattison’s elaboration of this review in Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, pp. 111–13. 18 Jakob peter mynster, “rationalisme. supranaturalisme,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 249–67. (english translation: “rationalism, supernaturalism,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, trans. and ed. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum press 2009 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 5), pp. 93–109.) martensen, “rationalisme, supranaturalisme og principium exclusi medii: (i anledning af H.H. Biskop mynsters afhandling herom i dette tidsskrifts forrige Heft),” Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 456–73. (english translation: “rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, pp. 127–43.) J.l. Heiberg also contributed an article in response to mynster. see his “en logisk Bemærkning i anledning af Biskop dr. mynsters afhandling om rationalisme og supranaturalisme,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 441–56. (english translation: “a remark on logic in reference to the right reverend Bishop mynster’s treatise on rationalism and supernaturalism,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, pp. 111–25.) 19 Hans lassen martensen, Mester Eckart. Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1840 (ASKB 649). (english translation: Meister Eckhart: A Study 15

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

233

treatments of the subject and one that is still relevant to contemporary considerations of mysticism. Outline to a System of Moral Philosophy was published the next year, 1841.20 the book articulates a system of freedom that bears some similarities to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. the year 1841 also found martensen serving on søren Kierkegaard’s dissertation committee. earlier in working on the dissertation Kierkegaard had paid a visit to martensen, an encounter that he later recounts in his autobiography.21 martensen ironically ended up giving the decisive vote in favor of approving Kierkegaard’s dissertation on the concept of irony. martensen’s thinking and writing undergo a shift in the year 1842. Five related factors are integral to understanding this transition.22 these are: (1) the exchange that took place in The Copenhagen Post and The Fatherland between an anonymous critic and martensen in January and February of 1840; (2) Copenhagen’s version of Fichte’s atheism controversy in Jena, namely, the Hans Brøchner affair of december 1841 centering around the refusal to let this supporter of left Hegelianism take the theological exam for ordination; (3) two letters received by martensen in the early 1840s from the german Hegelians eduard zeller and philipp marheineke inviting him to take part in their continuance of the scientific debate along Hegelian lines— invitations which he declined; (4) martensen’s relationship with mynster, who suggested to martensen that he should combine an ecclesial activity with his activity at the university;23 and (5) martensen’s 1842 essay entitled “the religious Crisis of the present” that was published in Heiberg’s Intelligensblade on 15 april.24 the thrust of martensen’s essay on “the religious Crisis of the present” is to offer reflection on the church in relation to culture. The treatment of Christ and culture continues the next year in martensen’s publication on Christian baptism.25 in this 1843 book, coming in response to the missionary work of Baptists in denmark in in Speculative Theology, in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 149–243.) 20 Hans lassen martensen, Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System. Udgivet til Brug ved academiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 650). (english translation: Outline to a System of Moral Philosophy, in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 245–313.) 21 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, pp. 142–3. 22 For treatment of this transition in martensen’s emphasis, see Jens schjørring, Teologi og Filosofi. Nogle Analyser og Dokumenter vedrørende Hegelianismen i Dansk Teologi, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad 1974, pp 27–35. See my discussion of these five factors in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 13–14. see also stewart, “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” pp. 119–23. 23 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, p. 75. Also quite influential at this time was the german theologian isaak august dorner (1809–84), with whom martensen carried on a correspondence for many decades. see Briefwechsel zwischen H.L. Martensen und I.A. Dorner, 1839–1881, vols. 1–2, Berlin: H. reuter 1888, vol. 1, pp. 50–63. martensen expresses to dorner his recognition of the need to give greater emphasis to the objective side of Christianity. 24 Hans lassen martensen, “nutidens religiøse Crisis,” Intelligensblade, vol. 3, 1842, pp. 53–73. 25 Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Daab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843 (ASKB 652).

234

Curtis L. Thompson

the late 1830s and early 1840s,26 martensen begins making good on his commitment to give greater emphasis to the objective side of Christianity. in the same year, 1843, martensen was brought into liturgical studies that led to his publication on “the Church year.”27 martensen became more entrenched in golden age denmark and in the state church when he assumed the duties of Court preacher in 1845. in that capacity he had the responsibility to proclaim god’s word to the king and the queen. From 1843 to 1849 martensen is silent literarily, aside from two very minor publications and his collection of sermons which would be published regularly from his assumption of duties a Court preacher to the end of his life.28 In 1848, the year after Martensen’s first wife died, he was married to virginie Henriette Constance Bidoulac, the daughter of a French immigrant. martensen’s literary silence ended in the summer of 1849 with the publication of his Christian Dogmatics, which endorses the place of speculation in theological construction, as is apparent in the following lengthy quotation: the task of dogmatic theology, consequently, is to present the Christian view in a system of interconnected scientific concepts. The dogmatic concept is most exactly an explicative concept, an unfolding of that which is given in intuition, a development of its inner connections within itself. But the explicative concept contains in itself the urge toward the speculative concept, which does not merely rest content with presenting the connection between the elements, but also inquires about possibility and ground; which does not merely talk of the ita but the quare. the fundamental explication will not be able to avoid developing such contradictions of thought, such antinomies, which require a mediation in the concept; for as it is said in sirach’s wisdom (33, 17): “the works of the Highest are always two, one against the other”; and the speculative depends precisely on grasping the contradictions in the unity of the idea. a speculative view must always be assumed, if the presentation is not to lose itself in an external understanding, or only confine itself to comprehending the Christians symbols in their practical, merely utilitarian meaning. However many doubts, for instance in an irenaeus and a luther, have been entertained against a speculative conceiving, yet we always encounter in their works that contemplative eye which grasps all singular realities in the light of the fundamental idea. But although we grant to luther that the fundamental form for dogmatics as the thetical theology is ita, not quare (luther often complains about the curiosity of the scholastic sophists with their constant quare and exhorts remaining content with ita): yet it will not be possible to separate the explicative and the speculative concept by a firm and unmovable limit. Every ita contains a hidden quare, which under careful explication cannot other than come forth and invite that higher sort of conceiving. Certainly we must always maintain that conceptual comprehension is the fragmentary in our knowledge, while the whole lies in the fullness of intuition, which is not exhausted by any conceptual development. But just as they have always For an account of the rise of the Baptist movement in denmark, see Den Danske Kirkes Historie, ed. by Koch and Kornerup, vol. 6, pp. 302–10. 27 Hans lassen martensen, “Kirke-aaret,” Urania: Aarbog for 1844, ed. by J.l. Heiberg, Copenhagen: H.i. Bing 1843, pp. 161–188 (reprinted in Julius martensen, Mindre Skrifter og Taler af Biskop Martensen, pp. 93–109). 28 a chronological list of all of martensen’s published sermons and talks are included in Julius martensen, Mindre Skrifter og Taler af Biskop Martensen, pp. 13–24. 26

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

235

been put to shame who pretended to have conceived everything; so have they no less been put to shame who have thought once and for all to be able to mark out the limits for all human conceiving, to be able to establish a non plus ultra, by which it is to have its continuation. For afterwards it appeared constantly that there yet was given a “plus ultra,” and the supposedly firm limits revealed their movable nature by moving. Healthy reflection will therefore know that speculative conceiving itself is a greatly movable and dialectical concept, which does not allow itself to be disposed of by a dry yes or no, does not allow itself to be dismissed by the assertion that it must either be perfect or not be, for it is only as becoming; every conclusion in the concept will therefore always only be relative, every solution to the problem will in addition be a new sharpening of the problem; the concluded in knowledge will in addition contain the divinatory, which points toward another and still higher solution.29

The creative conflictual milieu is integral to genuine theological construction. in his dogmatics martensen understands god as spirit, spirit who is eternal love, which reconciles the world with godself and leads to divine self-limitation: god limits god’s power, as god from the depths of god’s eternal life calls forth a world of created beings, which god produces in a derivative sense to have life in themselves; but exactly by this fact that god is the power in a free world, god reveals the inner greatness in god’s power. For that power is not the true power, which does not tolerate any free movement outside itself, because it itself will immediately be everything and do everything; but that power is the true power, which creates freedom, and which nevertheless is able to make itself all in all.30

On divine power, then, Martensen stresses “the concept of inner infinitude” and “the intensive, the central absolute” over against the pantheists’ “concept of external infinitude” and “the extensive absolute.”31 very important for martensen’s understanding of god is the reality of possibilities.32 Concerning providence, “what speculation calls the idea, the worldforming thought, is designated in the Holy scriptures as wisdom,” and as “the divine sophia, the heavenly maiden.”33 a complete revelation of the attribute of righteousness can only be revealed in the world of freedom.34 since it is the nature of goodness to be able to possess its fullness only through communication, it is clear why describing the goodness of God leads to affirming God as Communicativum

Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, pp. 79–80. (english translation: Christian Dogmatics, trans. from the 1856 german edition by w. urwick, edinburgh: t.&t. Clark 1878, pp. 64–6.) this is my translation from the danish; the english version loses much in translation. at the close of this statement martensen offers a footnote referencing sibbern’s Bidrag til Besvarelsen af det Spørgsmaal: Hvad er Dogmatik? for the distinction between the explicatory and the speculative methods of development, and concerning what is merely relative and transitory in this distinction. 30 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 98. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 81.) 31 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 99. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 81.) 32 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 116. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 99.) 33 ibid. 34 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 117. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 97.) 29

236

Curtis L. Thompson

Sui (self-communicating).35 in martensen’s vision, the human needs god and this is the human’s highest perfection.”36 The divine attributes find “their concluding unity in love, which does not express a single aspect but the whole divine essence, since all other attributes only are more precisely determinations of love.”37 “all the divine attributes are combined in love, as in their center and life-principle.”38 love is “a community of persons.”39 and martensen understands god as being a di-polar reality: “god lives a double life, a life in itself in undarkened peace and self-sufficiency and a life in and with God’s creation, in which God submits Godself to the conditions of finitude, even allows God’s power to be limited by the human’s sinful will.”40 in response to the critics of his dogmatics, and in particular to the criticism of rasmus nielsen, martensen wrote his Dogmatic Elucidations in 1850.41 in the course of responding to critics, he articulates rather astutely what he takes Kierkegaard’s authorship to be about. He sees that the meaning of these writings was in a socratic way to set a deeper skepticism in motion within the reader in order thereby to awaken him or her to seek the problem, which is higher and more than all theological and philosophical academic problems, namely, the personal problem of life, which no system can give us or solve for us, but which only the individual human is itself able to take a stand on and is itself able to solve from its own god-given peculiarity.42

in the middle of the nineteenth century martensen knew what Kierkegaard’s project was about, but he was not moved to give the socratic author public praise. the year 1848 had brought revolutionary thinking to denmark, among other places in europe, and with this upheaval came a time of awakening in the whole arena of the social. Martensen’s life and work are influenced by this change in the context, and his theology takes a turn toward the practical. pertinent to our consideration is Kierkegaard’s attack on the church that took place in 1854 and 1855. martensen gives his account of this in his autobiography.43 A key difficulty was Martensen’s use of the phrase “witness to the truth,” which he explains in his Levnet.44 By June 6, 1854, the day after martensen had been installed as bishop of zealand, he was sending out a pastoral letter to the clergy of the diocese inviting them to join him in working for the unity and solidarity of the church.45 Kierkegaard’s attack began in martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 119. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 99.) ibid. 37 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 123. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 102.) 38 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 119. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 99.) 39 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 121. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 100.) 40 martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, p. 122. (Christian Dogmatics, p. 101.) 41 Hans lassen martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 654). 42 ibid., p. 12. 43 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 3, pp. 12–13. (Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 201.) 44 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 3, pp. 13–15. (Encounters with Kierkegaard, pp. 201–2.) 45 martensen, Hyrdebrev. Til Geistligheden i Sjællands Stift, reprinted in Mindre Skrifter og Taler af Biskop Martensen, pp. 110–12. For martensen’s treatment of his being selected as bishop, see Af mit Levnet, vol. 3, pp. 1–8. 35 36

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

237

earnest in mid december 1854 and extended into september of the next year. By the end of the year, martensen was making his single response to the attack Kierkegaard had launched against him.46 a parallel is seen by martensen between Kierkegaard’s attack on the established church and that which had been leveled against it over the years by the sects.47 Kierkegaard died on november 11, 1855. the next month martensen published a little writing, In Memory of J.P. Mynster, which makes the case for the tremendous spiritual influence on Denmark exerted by the person and activity of Mynster, who, according to his golden age comrade, brought a “proper union of the Christian and the human.”48 over the next years martensen wrote much more, but we will bypass commenting on those writings since they fall beyond the years of Kierkegaard’s life. II. Places in Kierkegaard’s Writings where He Mentions Martensen martensen was the leading theological voice in denmark, and Kierkegaard had a multi-faceted relationship with him. therefore, identifying martensen as a contemporary danish source for Kierkegaard’s writing is a complex matter. Kierkegaard owned and read the writings martensen had published. He declares in his journals and notebooks that he has not criticized martensen in his published writings, but this is somewhat misleading. on occasion Kierkegaard incorporates a journal entry, which had referred explicitly to martensen, into the text of a published work and then changes the martensen reference to “the docent” or “the professor.” while martensen might not be explicitly mentioned, he was the original target. we will attempt to account for almost every reference to martensen in Kierkegaard’s writings, both his published works and his notebooks and journals. this is no small task, since Kierkegaard makes many hundreds of references to martensen in his journals and notebooks. in his youthful years at the university from 1834 to the writing of his dissertation on irony in 1841, a number of journal entries were made relating to this intriguing figure five years Kierkegaard’s senior. In the 1834 context of being privately tutored by martensen in schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre, Kierkegaard makes observations on various excerpts, translated into danish, from that watershed work in modern theological reflection.49 sometime during 1836–37 journal entries were made in reference to martensen’s review of J.l. Heiberg’s introductory lecture to Hegel’s logic.50 The year 1837 also finds the budding intellectual making entries on martensen’s 1836 german writing Ueber Lenau’s Faust and on his danish reworking 46 Hans lassen martensen, “i anledning af dr. s. Kierkegaards artikel i Fædrelandet,” nr. 295,” Berlingske Tidende, no. 302 (december 28), 1854. an english translation of this response is reprinted in M, 360–6. see martensen’s comments on this article in Af mit Levnet, vol. 3, p. 16. (Encounters with Kierkegaard, p. 202.) 47 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 3, pp. 16–17. (Encounters with Kierkegaard, pp. 202–3.) 48 Hans lassen martensen, Til Erindring om J P. Mynster, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855. 49 Pap. i C 20 / JP 4, 3843. 50 SKS 17, 198–202, CC:12 / KJN 1, 189-93. SKS 17, 121–2, BB:32 / KJN 1, 115. then Kierkegaard later, likely in 1843, makes reference to a phrase martensen used in this article,

238

Curtis L. Thompson

of that short work as Betragtninger over Ideen af Faust. Med Hensyn paa Lenaus Faust.51 Kierkegaard expresses vivid disappointment that martensen published his work before Kierkegaard could complete his.52 on comedy Kierkegaard learns from martensen as well as from Heiberg, and yet he notes that there is “mimicry” of Hegel at work in martensen’s view.53 in 1837 Kierkegaard is already poking fun at martensen,54 referring to martensen’s two-year study trip from 1834 to 1836. Kierkegaard did not appreciate martensen’s attempts to benefit from Hegel’s brilliance.55 Kierkegaard also had in his possession notes from martensen’s lecture courses, either that he had taken or that he had procured from another student. these include his “introductory lectures to speculative dogmatics” of 1837–38,56 his “lectures on the History of modern philosophy from Kant to Hegel” of 1838–39,57 and some of his “lectures on speculative dogmatics” of 1838–39.58 Kierkegaard in addition comments on other writings of martensen from these early years; namely, martensen’s dissertation on autonomy,59 his review of J.l. Heiberg’s New Poems,60 his 1840 writing on medieval mysticism,61 and his 1841 Outline to a System of Moral Philosophy.62 Kierkegaard remembers a decade after the fact what a sensation martensen’s lectures made among the students at the university.63 on the matter of mysticism, marie thulstrup concluded that Kierkegaard borrowed the term “mystical consciousness” from martensen.”64 De omnibus dubitandum est (everything must be doubted), as the subtitle to the manuscript entitled Johannes Climacus, Pap. iv B 1 / JP 5, 5621. 51 SKS 17, 49, aa:38 / KJN 1, 43. Pap. ii a 597 / JP 5, 5225. SKS 18, 83, FF:38 / KJN 2, 76. 52 Pap. ii a 597 / JP 5, 5225. 53 SKS 19, 375, not12:7 / PJ, 179. 54 SKS 17, 50, aa:40 / KJN 1, 43-4. 55 SKS 18, 109, FF:176 / KJN 2, 100. Kierkegaard also writes, likely from 1836: “the Hegelian cud-chewing involving three stomachs—first, immediacy—then it is regurgitated— then down once more; perhaps a successor master-mind could continue this with four stomachs etc., down again and then up again. i do not know whether the master-mind understands what i mean.” Pap. i a 229 / JP 2, 1566. 56 SKS 19, 125–43, not4.3–12 / JP 5, 5277. 57 Pap. ii C 12–24 in Pap. Xii, pp. 280–331 / JP 5, 5353. 58 SKS 18, 374–86, KK:11 / KJN 2, 342-52. Pap. ii C 28 in Pap. Xiii, pp. 44–116 / JP 5, 5299. 59 Pap. iv B 1 / JP 5, 5621. SKS 18, 203, JJ:196 / KJN 2, 187. Pap. v B 49, 5. 60 Pap. iv B 46, SKS 19, 375, not12:7 / JP 2, 1738. 61 Pap. vii–2 B 235. the reference is to “brothers and sisters of the Free spirit.” see Hans lassen martensen, Mester Eckart. Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1840, pp. 12–13. (ASKB 649). (english translation: Meister Eckhart: A Study in Speculative Theology, in Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 158–60.) 62 SKS 18, 362, JJ:368 / KJN 2, 241. SKS 24, 75, nB21:124. 63 SKS 22, 314, nB13:66 / PF, supplement, pp. 226–7. see stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, p. 107. 64 marie mikulová thulstrup, “plato’s vision and its interpretation,” in Kierkegaard’s Classical Inspiration, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 14), p. 85.

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

239

a culminating experience in the theological studies program at the university of Copenhagen was a major examination. the other large hurdle was the dissertation. in considering Kierkegaard’s dissertation, The Concept of Irony, with Continual Reference to Socrates, submitted in 1841 to obtain the degree of master of arts, we remember how Kierkegaard had read portions of it to martensen and that martensen had served as a reader and examiner. in the dissertation martensen had been mentioned by name in the very last sentence of the work.65 the commentary on this passage notes that in martensen’s extensive review of Heiberg’s New Poems filling nineteen newspaper columns, he develops his view of Christian humor.66 other examiners “seemed to feel that the dissertation on irony lacked all respect for authority,” and martensen did not offer comment on the work.67 However, roger poole points out the irony in the fact that it turns out to be martensen himself “who has the final decision as to whether to pass or fail his young opponent.”68 poole is one of the few scholars to acknowledge, at least in this instance, that there are some features in martensen that ought to be appreciated.69 Howard and edna Hong have suggested that Kierkegaard could be making an allusion to martensen in The Concept of Irony when he speaks of the abstract dialectical method taking one “beyond” in a couple of senses.70 and the mentioning of “the fly sheet” in The Concept of Irony, in speaking of the sophists’ wisdom as being “ ‘ein fliegendes Blatt [a fly sheet],’ which was not kept from flapping about either by a prominent public figure or by integration into a coherent system of knowledge,”71 was surely a reference to martensen, since he is mentioned in the comparable journal entry.72 when Kierkegaard in this work compares the sophists “to the capsule information that a tutor tries to convey to those being tutored,”73 he again is likely thinking of his tutor martensen. there is also another example of poking fun at his young professor in the work on irony.74 an early work of Kierkegaard, never published, was The Battle between the Old and the New Soap-Cellars. with the introduction of Hegel to university students and the onslaught of the disease of Hegelese, this dramatic satire strikes out against the sort of blind following of a fad that underlay this commandeering of language within the academic arena. Joakim garff thinks martensen’s review of Heiberg’s Introductory Lecture contributed to this situation.75 the second act of this comedy SKS 1, 357 / CI, 329. SKS K1, p. 376. 67 roger poole, Kierkegaard: The Indirect Communication, Charlottesville and london: university press of virginia 1993, p. 36; p. 38. 68 ibid., p. 38. 69 ibid., pp. 40–1. 70 SKS 1, 176 / CI, 124. 71 SKS 1, 247–8 / CI, 201–2. 72 SKS 17, 121–2, BB:32 / KJN 1, 115. see also SKS 17, 91, BB:9 / KJN 1, 84 and CI, 526–627, note 477. 73 SKS 1, 249 / CI, 204. 74 SKS 1, 263 / CI, 218. 75 Joakim garff, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard: A Biography, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 2005, p. 81. 65 66

240

Curtis L. Thompson

takes place at “the prytaneum,” where philosophical discussions are conducted. undoubtedly, martensen is a target of this farce; the only question concerns which of the play’s characters—mr. phrase or mr. von Jumping Jack—is intended as a caricature of him. For our source-research purposes, it is more important to realize that martensen lies behind the scenes of the writing of this play as instigator of much of this Hegelian bemusement and thus is serving as a source of Kierkegaard’s activities as a playwright, than it is to nail down exactly which of these two characters is intended to represent the theological-philosophical personage who is establishing the intellectual agenda for at least one young academic within the quaint confines of Copenhagen in the last half of the 1830s. Julia Watkin also identifies a couple of latin phrases used in the play as related to the de omnibus dubitandum est phrase [“everything must be doubted”] that martensen had emphasized in his review of Heiberg’s Introductory Lecture and elsewhere.76 during his creative years of 1842 to 1846, Kierkegaard was closely following the activities of martensen. Copenhagen university’s theological professor had published his piece on Christian baptism, and Kierkegaard entered comments on it in his journals.77 it is a possible source for Kierkegaard’s thinking and writing that has not yet been investigated with any care by Kierkegaard scholars but needs to be. Kierkegaard’s first two upbuilding or edifying discourses were published on May 16, 1843 and four more came out in december of that year, with more to regularly follow. martensen’s book on Christian baptism also came out in may 1843. in that book martensen places great emphasis on Christian proclamation and thereby on the Christian preacher, who through his or her call and participation in the church has been appropriated by Christ and therefore is able to preach “in the apostolic spirit.” one wonders if martensen’s emphasis on ordination as requisite for authoritative preaching influences Kierkegaard’s designation of his upbuilding writings as discourses rather than sermons. the work Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est was begun by Kierkegaard on november 11, 1843, the same day his brother peter Christian was ordained. this writing contains no explicit reference to martensen but his lectures on the history of philosophy and speculative dogmatics stand in the background, for in those lectures, and elsewhere in published writings, he discussed descartes and his principle that “everything must be doubted.” simply that this phrase, which at this time Kierkegaard strictly identified with Copenhagen’s fast-climbing theologian, is included in the title,78 indicates that it should be read over against the dynamic intellectual context of the day, in which the relation between faith and reason, theology and philosophy had captured the imagination of many, and in which, amidst the confusions resulting from this new fermenting, many—if not Kierkegaard himself—were looking to martensen as the guiding light and living hope that some theological clarity might be made of it all. EPW, 114 and note 48 on p. 264. Pap. iv B 59 / JP 5, 5710. SKS 18, 205, JJ:205.1 / KJN 2, 189. Pap. vi B 24, 1. Pap. vi B 98, 15. Pap. v C 10 / JP 1, 452. 78 see stewart’s consideration of the allusion to martensen in the title, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 242–9. 76 77

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

241

In Kierkegaard’s first major pseudonymous work, Either/Or, martensen is again not mentioned by name. However, the supplement to Either/Or: Part I includes a journal entry which identifies Martensen as not having seen the deeper significance in Lenau’s Faust of mephistopheles starting the music at the moment Faust begins to portray don Juan, namely, that the don Juanian life is really musical.79 in this volume another selected entry from the journals discusses martensen’s consideration of Faust’s killing himself and then deliberates on why that is an inappropriate ending to the piece.80 in a draft to Either/Or one finds printed martensen’s description of J.l. Heiberg as denmark’s dante,81 referring to his review of Heiberg’s “a soul after death. an apocalyptic Comedy” in the collection New Poems.82 in a “post-scriptum to Either/Or” by victor eremita written in march of 1844, Kierkegaard added the following lines to the text and then crossed them out: “From the point of view of the public good and the friend of the masses, are not the efforts of the anabaptists [Gjendøber, rebaptizers] just as corrupt as from the point of view of dogmatics—!”83 the translators suggest martensen’s writing on baptism as one example discussing the anabaptist dogmatic view to which Kierkegaard was referring, pointing thus to this martensenian writing as a likely source for Kierkegaard.84 the single point of possible connection in Constantin Constantius’ Repetition is the mention of “an apocalyptic author,” which likely refers to martensen, who wrote the review of the book arguing for the Johannine authorship of the apocalypse and also had written on apocalyptic poetry.85 it is quite a different matter, however, in the writing Fear and Trembling. in the preface Johannes de silentio mentions “going further” a number of times. He writes that “every assistant professor, tutor, and student, every rural outsider and tenant incumbent in philosophy is unwilling to stop with doubting everything but goes further [gaaer videre].”86 He notes: “in our

EO1, supplement, p. 480. SKS 18, 83, FF:38 / KJN 2, 76. the reference is to the work by niembsch von strehlenau’s pseudonym nikolaus lenau’s Faust: ein Gedicht, pp. 49–51. martensen discusses this work in Ueber Lenau’s Faust and in the danish rewriting of that work, Betragtninger over Ideen af Faust, med Hensyn paa Lenaus Faust, published in J.l. Heiberg’s Perseus, vol. 1, 1837, pp. 91–164. 80 SKS 17, 49, aa:38 / KJN 1, 43. 81 Pap. iv B 46 / EO2, supplement, p. 404. the sentence reads, “it will soon be two years since Herr professor [Heiberg] changed from being the witty, jesting, hilarious vaudeville playwright who yet at times seemed somewhat astray in the faith, the victorious polemicist, the measured esthetician, and became denmark’s dante, the musing genius who in his apocalyptic poem peered into the secrets of eternal life, became the Church’s dutiful son from whom the esteemed clergy of the diocese expected everything for the good of the ‘parish.’ ” 82 Heiberg’s work, Nye Digte, was published in Copenhagen, 1841, and martensen’s review was printed in Fædrelandet, 398, January 10, 1841, columns 3209–11. 83 Pap. iv B 59, p. 216 / EO2, supplement, p. 419. 84 Cf. EO2, supplement, p. 504, note 108. 85 SKS 4, 53 / R, 182. 86 SKS 4, 101 / FT, 5. 79

242

Curtis L. Thompson

age, everyone is unwilling to stop with faith that goes further [gaaer videre].”87 the translators point out that these statements likely refer to Heiberg and martensen and that “going further” refers to the system building attempted by Hegelians along the lines of Hegel’s Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences.88 with the inclusion of descartes and the doubt theme, it seems more likely that this is a reference to martensen than to Heiberg. the “going further” likely refers instead to the need to be critical of Hegel’s philosophy and to go beyond it because it does not advance beyond the autonomous perspective to the theonomous. in this work we read that “that man [abraham] was not a thinker. He did not feel any need to go beyond faith.”89 martensen, of course, makes the case that one engages in theological reflection in order to grasp the cognitive content of faith, but, as we have seen, he does not say that such a move in arriving at a truthful understanding of the faith can then leave faith behind since one has gone beyond it. the reality of faith ever holds the riches, and cognitive inquiry ever needs to return to the origin of truth. in this sense Johannes [latin for Hans] martensen agrees with Johannes de silentio that abraham “got no further than faith.”90 Johannes charges theology with wanting to court philosophy, which “goes further,” and even “going beyond Hegel,” thinking it can comprehend things without much difficulty; but it cannot think about Abraham in this way because of “the prodigious paradox that is the content of abraham’s life.”91 the current “generation does not stop with faith, does not stop with the miracle of faith, turning water into wine—it goes further and turns wine into water.”92 these various indirect references to martensen are a way to criticize him as one who is complicitous with the age in furthering the leveling process that negates freedom, individuality, and responsibility. Kierkegaard recognized that because of the chasm separating the human from the divine, attempts to gain knowledge of the divine mystery transcending human reach are going to be fragmentary or piecemeal at best. in the preface to Philosophical Fragments, Johannes Climacus warns against being deluded “into thinking that now a new era, a new epoch, etc. was beginning” and that much commotion has been made over the system.93 lauritz vilhelm petersen had translated martensen’s latin dissertation into danish. in his extremely brief preface he had stated in reference to this writing, “It was the first writing that came out in Denmark in the modern speculative direction and heralded the era in theology from which people have now already begun to mark time.”94 Martensen is also at least one important figure in the background for understanding the full significance of the statement that “the concept, like a juggler in this carnival time, has to keep doing those continual flip-flopping

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

SKS 4, 102 / FT, 7. FT, supplement, p. 340, note 1. SKS 4, 105 / FT, 9. SKS 4, 119 / FT, 23. SKS 4, 129 / FT, 32–3. SKS 4, 132 / FT, 37. SKS 4, 216 / PF, 6. Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, p. 74. see also PF, supplement, p. 275, note 10.

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

243

tricks—until the man himself flips over.”95 this is a reference to the dialectical character of the concept in Hegel’s philosophy, which results in given realities flipping over into their opposites. The mediating capacity of thinking possesses this power of aufheben or ophæve, and in denmark martensen was the leading proponent of the importance of such mediating in theological work. it can also be pointed out that thulstrup believes the last paragraph of Fragments—mentioning dealing with the relations between philosophy and Christianity, discovering the principle of mediation, and waiting for one to bring the system—likely also has martensen in mind.96 Jon stewart has established that “Kierkegaard sees the Fragments as a criticism of speculative thought,” and especially a criticism of the principle of mediation; it “is primarily a polemic against martensen’s claim for the use of mediation in speculative theology.”97 Stewart has identified other places in Fragments where martensen is likely being alluded to. For instance, “in Chapter i Climacus refers to the doctrine of mediation with the familiar formulation ‘to a certain degree,’” indicating by this phrase “that mediation leads to a position half-way, which ultimately says nothing.”98 in the “interlude” of this work in speaking of skeptical doubt, Kierkegaard’s Climacus again alludes to martensen when he writes: Yet it is not so difficult to understand this or to understand how this casts light on belief, provided one is not utterly confused by the Hegelian doubt about everything, against which there is really no need to preach, for what the Hegelians say about it is of such a nature that it seems rather to favor a modest doubt as to whether there really is anything to their having doubted something.99

since this statement is made in the context of also having used “de omnibus dubitandum est,” a phrase Kierkegaard identified with Martensen, it is clear which particular Hegelian is being targeted. A final indicator of the link between Martensen and the category of mediation is Kierkegaard’s 1850 notebook entry that critically states in reference to martensen: “mediation is his existence-category.”100 stewart makes the case that martensen’s article “rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii” “is the main target of the criticism of mediation in the Fragments.”101 martensen functions as a source of information for Kierkegaard’s SKS 4, 216 / PF, 6. see thulstrup’s comments on this passage in søren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, trans. by david swenson, introduction and commentary by niels thulstrup, translation revised and commentary trans. by Howard v. Hong, princeton: princeton university press 1962, pp. 158–60. 96 søren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, p. 260. 97 stewart, Hegel’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 337–8. 98 ibid., p. 346. the passage stewart is referring to is located at SKS 4, 220 / PF, 11. 99 SKS 4, 281 / PF, 82. see stewart, Hegel’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, p. 346. 100 Pap. X–6 B 137 / JP 6, 6636. see stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, p. 347. 101 stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 347–55. see also the article by arild waaler and Christian Fink tolstrup, “Philosophical Fragments—in response to the debate between mynster and martensen,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 208–34. 95

244

Curtis L. Thompson

thinking in having Johannes Climacus pen this work in more than the area of mediation, but we must move on. The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin was published in 1844. as one comes to expect, no explicit reference is made to martensen in this book. the dispute centers more on another danish Hegelian, adolph peter adler (1812–69), than on martensen. there are, however, a few indirect references to our professor. in the preface, vigilius Haufniensis mentions not needing to “assume that era and epoch” begin with the publishing of one’s book,102 again alluding to the translator’s preface to martensen’s dissertation on the autonomy of modern thinking. a few pages later we read in the “introduction”: “thus when in dogmatics faith is called the immediate without any further clarification, there is gained the advantage that everybody is convinced of the necessity of not stopping with faith.”103 in draft form a note was added to this statement, namely: “and this happens every day before our eyes.”104 the editors and translators are confident that this “polemic is not directed primarily against Hegel himself but against the danish Hegelians rasmus nielsen and H.l. martensen.”105 also, near the end of the work in discussing those who “bend eternity into time for the imagination,” he notes: “some envision eternity apocalyptically, pretend to be dante, while dante, no matter how much he conceded to the view of imagination, did not suspend the effect of ethical judgment.”106 this alludes “to J.l. Heiberg’s apocalyptic comedy, En Sjæl efter Døden (1841), and martensen’s review of it in the daily paper Fædrelandet.”107 in his Fatherland review of Heiberg’s New Poems, martensen had compared Heiberg to dante, and he had concluded that in art the human has eternal life. it has been suggested that when Kierkegaard, via vigilius Haufniensis, discussed the conception of eternity in time in The Concept of Anxiety, martensen’s comparison “enabled Kierkegaard to formulate a contrast between a kind of purely imaginative poetry, like Heiberg’s, ...and dante’s, where he found the application of ethical criteria to the imaginative creation, the aesthetic material,” and this dantian view asserts that “art is an anticipation of eternal life.”108 published on June 17, 1844 along with The Concept of Anxiety was Prefaces. in this work, by the pseudonym nicolaus notabene, the primary target is Heiberg. in preface vii, however, the principal concern is mediation. although Hegel himself is mentioned in the piece, we should heed stewart’s contention that the polemical tone of the piece supports reading it as targeting danish Hegelians rather than Hegel himself.109 it had been intended as the preface for The Concept of Anxiety, but SKS 4, 313 / CA, 7. SKS 4, 318 / CA, 10. 104 Pap. v B 49:2 / CA, supplement, p. 180. 105 CA, supplement, p. 224, note 15. 106 SKS 5, 452 / CA, 153. 107 CA, supplement, 253, note 62. 108 alessandro Cortese, “dante,” in Kierkegaard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), pp. 151–2. see SKS 5, 452 / CA, 153. 109 stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations with Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 337–41. Hegel is mentioned near the end of preface vii, SKS 4, 506 / P, 45. 102 103

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

245

Kierkegaard decided against using it since it would “distract attention from the matter at hand.”110 in this preface there are allusions to a number of Hegelians, and a main purpose is to criticize their lack of originality, and this is a charge Kierkegaard levels elsewhere against martensen: so he should here be counted among the Hegelians nicolaus is critiquing. Stages on Life’s Way, edited by Hilarius Bookbinder and published on april 30, 1845, is another pseudonymous writing that has very few obvious connections to martensen. we encounter the words: “i do imagine my reader to be among these, since i am far from wanting to instruct the admired ones who make systematic discoveries à la niels Klim, who have left their good skin [skind] in order to put on the ‘real appearance [virkelige Skin].’111 the note to this usage indicates this is a version of an expression (“sande Skin,” true appearance) used by Hans lassen martensen in his Faust writing.112 a reference to speculation and comedy113 is a possible allusion to martensen’s review of Heiberg’s New Poems, whose importance he stresses “as an expression of ‘the spirit of the new age’ and of the teachings of speculative philosophy.”114 the next work is a huge book that develops most fully the Kierkegaardian critique of Hegel and the Hegelians. yet, in this analysis we cannot do more than indicate a few ways in which martensen has served as a source for Kierkegaard’s creative labors in this book that was at one point to terminate his activity as an author. Johannes Climacus’ 1846 Concluding Unscientific Postscript continues consideration of the Fragments’ stated question concerning “eternal happiness,” which we examined in relation to martensen’s baptism book, a possible source for this book as well. an 1845 journal entry discusses martensen’s baptism book, establishing that it was a source for him. in question is the proposition that “baptism is necessary for salvation,” which martensen acknowledges as true but as having its limitations.115 He explains what he means in a rather long passage116 that reveals him as a theologian affirming the deliverances of the Christian faith while also honoring the context and recognizing the limits of theological reflection and the presumptuousness of limiting what god might be able to accomplish in working through the possibilities of life. the piece on Christian baptism is also relevant to the Postscript’s discussion of Christianity in terms of objectivity and subjectivity. martensen acknowledges the importance of subjectivity and of the single individual, but he also stresses the significant place of objectivity, and how the times called for an emphasis on objectivity to offset the overemphasis on subjectivity. Johannes Climacus likewise frames his discussion of Christianity in terms of subjectivity and objectivity, making many of the same points martensen does in embracing subjectivity. of course, he 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Pap. v B 71 / P, supplement, p. 118. SKS 6, 152 / SL, 163. SLW, supplement, p. 703, note 122. SKS 6, 382 / SL, 412. SLW, supplement, p. 732, note 460. martensen, Den christelige Daab, p. 66. ibid., pp. 68–71.

246

Curtis L. Thompson

presents the Hegelian philosophers as stressing Christianity understood only in terms of objectivity. a serious probing into the Postscript and martensen would require turning to the thorough research of Jon stewart, who concludes that its main target is not so much Hegel himself as danish Hegelians, and most particularly martensen.117 He also shows that the position taken by martensen in his review of Heiberg’s Introductory Lecture—affirming that there is “something inexplicable” in both poetry and religion that “can only be understood by faith, a freedom, which to be sure contains necessity in itself, but is infinitely more than this”—essentially provides an outline of the view Johannes Climacus takes in this book.118 stewart establishes martensen’s relevance to Climacus’ development of many themes.119 Here, as in many other of Kierkegaard’s writings, martensen was shaping his agenda more than has hitherto been acknowledged. during these years martensen’s success in relation to the established order of golden age denmark provided occasion for Kierkegaard’s ongoing criticisms. anticipating his later attack on the established order, Kierkegaard in 1846 registers his contempt for martensen and others who “live cowardly and effeminately at a fashionable distance in select groups, guarded by illusion (that the masses seldom see them and therefore imagine them to be something).”120 Kierkegaard is always ready to offer a critique of martensen’s preaching, his life and work.121 Criticisms of martensen as a member of the establishment become more numerous as the years go on. in 1847 Kierkegaard complains about martensen’s lack of ethical backbone,122 incapacity to judge his work,123 playing the fool as Court preacher,124 and showing “how one should not preach.”125 By 1848 Kierkegaard includes martensen along with mynster and Heiberg as part of “the great clique”126 or coterie of the established order, and by the next year he depicts martensen as a good example of a contemporary figure being made into an authority to the detriment of society.127 yet, Kierkegaard thinks that he will be able to get on with his relation to martensen and the others in excellent fashion.128

stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations with Hegel Reconsidered, pp. 453–66. in his consideration of the Postscript, pp. 466–523, Martensen figures predominantly. 118 ibid., p. 480. 119 ibid., p. 517. 120 SKS 20, 45, nB:44 / JP 5, 5941. 121 SKS 21, 271, nB10:28. SKS 22, 165, nB12:41, 41.a. SKS 23, 260-1, nB18:12. SKS 23, 332-3, nB19-5. 122 SKS 20, 187–8, nB2:119 / JP 5, 6039. 123 SKS 20, 189, nB2:121. 124 SKS 20, 205, nB2:160 / JP 5, 6052. SKS 21, 271, nB10:28. see also other comments of Kierkegaard on martensen as Court preacher: SKS 22, 325–6, nB13:86. SKS 23, 260-1, nB18:12. Pap. X–6 B 135. Pap. Xi–2 a 310. Pap. X–6 B 253 / JP 6, 6787. 125 SKS 22, 394–5, nB14:86, 86.a / JP 6, 6552. 126 SKS 21, 39–41, nB6:55. 127 SKS 21, 271, nB10:28. 128 SKS 20, 319, nB4:68. 117

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

247

martensen promised the system,129 and in 1849 finally published his Christian Dogmatics, the work in systematic theology that he had been working on for so long. Kierkegaard makes numerous polemical remarks in his notebooks on the book and on the theological conflict it occasioned.130 He is very disappointed that martensen did not refer to his own writings, except for a reference in the preface to “random thoughts and aphorisms, sudden discoveries and hints” that he rejects without mentioning the author, and this dismissal instigates Kierkegaard to state “that these couple of lines in that preface were a dialectical indiscretion.”131 martensen might be able to ignore him, but he could not in the least way enter into competition with him.132 Kierkegaard makes many other entries in response to this statement in the preface to Christian Dogmatics,133 and then he later makes entries in relation to the preface to the second edition of this work as well.134 He charges that martensen— who essentially takes his cues from the clergy, who are suspicious of Kierkegaard because he has no livelihood and because he proclaims Christianity without being compensated for it135—is “dogmatically stiff,”136 shies away from “anything existential,”137 and could benefit greatly by reading Luther’s sermons aloud.138 Kierkegaard had found support from rasmus nielsen, who wrote a critical response to martensen’s Dogmatics. martensen’s Dogmatic Elucidations—in which he states regarding Kierkegaard’s writings that “my acquaintance with this diffuse literature is, as i said, only very scant and fragmentary”—prompted numerous Pap. X–6 B 137. SKS 22, 153, nB12:14 / JP 6, 6448. SKS 22, 153, nB12:15 / JP 2, 1132. SKS 22, 153, nB12:15a, 15b / JP 2, 1133. SKS 22, 154, nB12:16, 16a / JP 6, 6449. SKS 22, 154–5, nB12:18 / JP 1, 508. SKS 22, 156, nB12:21 / JP 3, 3564. SKS 22, 165, nB12:41, 41a. SKS 22, 167, nB 12:47, 47a / JP 6, 6460. SKS 22, 176–7, nB12:62, 62a. SKS 22, 177–178, nB12:64, 64a. SKS 22, 181, nB12:70, 70a. SKS 22, 181, 70b. SKS 22, 184, nB12:73, 73a / JP 6, 6465. SKS 22, 185, nB12:75, 75a, 75b. SKS 22, 185–6, nB12:76, 76a. SKS 22, 186, nB12:77, 77a. SKS 22, 187, 79, 79a. SKS 22, 189–90, nB12:85, 85a / JP 3, 3217. SKS 22, 239–40, nB12:157 / JP 6, 6493. SKS 22, 304–5, nB13:49. SKS 22, 325–6, nB13:86, 86a–86h. SKS 22, 411, nB14:111 / JP 3, 2657. SKS 23, 111, nB16:27. SKS 23, 169-70, nB17:7. SKS 23, 174-5, nB17:16. SKS 23, 179-80, nB17:23 / JP 6, 6595. SKS 23, 266-7, nB18:26. SKS 23, 270, nB18:30. SKS 23, 282-3, nB18:49. SKS 23, 289-92, nB18:58. SKS 24, 136-8, nB22:63 / JP 6, 6707. Pap. X–6 B 97. Pap. X–6 B 100. Pap. X–6 B 83 / JP 6, 6403. Pap. X–6 B, 84 / JP 6, 6404. Pap. X–6 B, 85 / JP 6, 6405. Pap. X–6 B, 86 / JP 6, 6406. Pap. X–6 B, 93 / JP 6, 6663. Pap. X–6 B, 105 / JP 6, 6475. Pap. X–6 B, 121 / JP 6, 6574. Pap. X–6 B, 127 / JP 6, 6566. Pap. X–6 B, 128 / JP 6, 6596. Pap. X–6 B 130 / JP 6, 6558. Pap. X–6 B, 131 / JP 6, 6559. Pap. X–6 B, 137 / JP 6, 6636. 131 SKS 23, 283, nB18:49. 132 SKS 21, 302-3, nB10:87. 133 SKS 23, 282-3, nB18:49. Pap. X–6 B 112. Pap. X–6 B 116. Pap. X–6 B 137 / JP 6, 6636. Pap. X–6 B 138. Pap. X–6 B 143 / JP 3, 3350. Pap. X–6 B 171 / JP 6, 6748. 134 SKS 23, 266-7, nB18:26. SKS 23, 270, nB18:30. SKS 23, 282-3, nB18:49. SKS 23, 289-92, nB18:58. Pap. X–6 B 133 / JP 4, 4295. 135 SKS 23, 401, nB20:21. 136 SKS 24, 64, nB21:102. 137 SKS 24, 75, nB21:124. 138 SKS 24, 59-60, nB21:92 / JP 3, 3515. 129 130

248

Curtis L. Thompson

polemical remarks in Kierkegaard’s notebooks.139 the relation between nielsen and martensen became another major topic treated extensively by Kierkegaard in his notebooks, especially during 1849 and 1850.140 entries of frustration are also made in response to a lecture given by søren’s older brother peter on the topic of martensen, Kierkegaard, and nielsen.141 Kierkegaard’s animosity towards martensen continues to mount, for Kierkegaard judges that as a philosopher martensen is not at all dialectical but operates with categories that are purely rhetorical; and as a Christian he calls for a genuinely actual life but in his own existence he wants merely to be a success in the world.142 thus in his notebooks Kierkegaard identifies a multitude of ways that the Professor falls short of integrity as a thinker.143 Kierkegaard holds that “the highly talented speculative dogmatician as dialectician” cannot compare to Johannes Climacus because martensen believes that one can explain the Christian paradox by means of direct SKS 23, 333-4, nB19:7 / JP 6, 6635. SKS 23, 357, nB19:37. SKS 23, 378, nB19:74.a. SKS 24, 75, nB21:124. Pap. X–5 B 54. Pap. X–6 B 135. Pap. X–6 B 137 / JP 6, 6636. Pap. X–6 B 138, Pap. X–6 B 139. 140 SKS 22, 219–220, nB12:129, 129a. SKS 22, 414, nB14:120, 120a / JP 66563. SKS 23, 169-70, nB17:7. SKS 23, 215-8, nB17:71. SKS 23, 229-30, nB17:81 / JP 6, 6610. SKS 23, 350-1, nB19:29. SKS 23, 357-8, nB19:39. SKS 23, 412, nB20:36.b. SKS 24, 140, nB22:66. SKS 24, 147-8, nB22:85. SKS 24, 283, nB23:160. SKS 24, 390-2, nB24:113. SKS 25, 243-4, nB28:36. Pap. X–6 B 91. Pap. X–6 B 95. Pap. X–6 B 96. Pap. X–6 B 97. Pap. X–6 B 99. Pap. X–6 B 100. Pap. X–6 B 101. Pap. X–6 B 102. Pap. X–6 B 109. Pap. X–6 B 111. Pap. X–6 B 120. Pap. X–6 B 121 / JP 6, 6574. Pap. X–6 B 124. Pap. Xi–3 B 14. Pap. Xi–3 B 101. Pap. Xi–3 B 107. Pap. Xi–3 B 157. 141 SKS 22, 392, nB14:81, 81.a, 81.b / JP 6, 6550. SKS 22, 394, nB14:85, 85.a / JP 6, 6553. SKS 22, 403–4, nB14:97, 97.a-97.d / JP 6, 6554. SKS 22, 405–6, nB14:102 / JP 6, 6557. SKS 22, 409–10, nB14:108. SKS 22, 413, nB14:117. Pap. X–6 B 130 / JP 6, 6558. SKS 25, 288, nB28:101 / JP 6, 6857. Pap. Xi–2 a 307. six years later, on July 5, 1855, brother peter again gave an address on søren’s writings, this time entitled “remarks on the Famous pseudonyms of the day and the theology of their author,” in which he called into question the theological appropriateness of this literature. see M, supplement, p. 633, note 230. this second talk caused Kierkegaard to reflect on the talk of six years earlier and write: “Yes, he drew a parallel between martensen and me and made martensen out to be sobriety. so, i have made sacrifices, renounced earthly reward—and then it is the hearty brother who is so kind, in contrast to this, to represent Martensen, who in every way has profited, as sobriety. ah! i, the opposite of sobriety, am depicted as representing ecstasy, presumably a kind of lunacy, whereby the past came rather close to agreement with contemptibility’s whole attack on me, which continually aims to represent my life as a kind of lunacy.”—Pap. Xi–3 B 155 and included in M, supplement, pp. 582–7. For english translation of these two talks by peter Christian Kierkegaard at the october 30, 1849 and July 5, 1855 roskilde ecclesiastical Conventions, see appendix B of Encounters with Kierkegaard, ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, pp. 256–68. 142 SKS 22, 154–155, nB12:18 / JP 1, 508. SKS 23, 289-92, nB18:58. 143 SKS 22, 162, nB12:32 / JP 3, 3565. SKS 22, 179, nB12:67 / JP 3, 3566. SKS 22, 184, nB12:73, 73a / JP 6, 6465. SKS 22, 185–6, nB12:76, 76a. SKS 22, 208–9, nB12:115, 115a, 115b / JP 1, 707. SKS 22, 325–8, nB13:85, 86.a–86.h / JP 3, 3034. Pap. X–6 B 103. Pap. X–6 B 141. 139

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

249

communication.144 the authenticity of martensen’s understanding of Christianity and his life as a Christian must also be questioned.145 Kierkegaard believes that, unfortunately, with the aid of mediocrity Martensen will finally become classical,146 and he articulates his dismay that this celebrity status comes in spite of the fact that martensen “is a web of untruth and triviality.”147 As Kierkegaard struggled to find receptive readers of his own work, he noticed that martensen “has nearly as many listeners as the ‘Flying Post’ has subscribers.”148 Kierkegaard became bitter and envious of martensen’s success.149 it was further maddening that “martensen was the best-paid writer engaged by reitzel,”150 C.a. reitzel being the leading publisher in Copenhagen during this time. Kierkegaard seems intrigued by the relation he has to martensen. in 1849 he offers a thoughtful assessment of martensen in an entry entitled “prof. martensen’s status.”151 as we have seen, he is obviously deeply distressed by what he takes to be martensen’s public assault in print, namely, the Dogmatics preface, which Kierkegaard regards as a judgment “that my entire productivity is nothing.”152 From Kierkegaard’s perspective the conflict between the two of them is not over concepts but over the nature of the Christian proclamation: martensen leads people “deeper and deeper into the flower-strewn, smiling jargon of illusions,” whereas Kierkegaard’s version of Christianity has no enticements or anything compelling, and that is why Kierkegaard finds himself standing all alone.153 during the years 1849–50 Kierkegaard’s notebooks include many other critical references to martensen.154 a complete interpretation of Pap. X–6 B 143. on martensen and the paradox see also Pap. X–6 B 142. on martensen’s expression that “fortunately Christianity is direct communication,” see Pap. X–5 B 52 / JP 2, 2133. Pap. X–6 B 135. under the pseudonym of Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard makes an entry on “the higher rationality” that differs from the speculative approach of prof. martensen: see Pap. X–6 B 68 / JP 6, 6598. as a disciple of Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard gives expression to “a theological point of view” in Pap. X–6 B 105 / JP 6, 6475. 145 Pap. X–6 B 145. in SKS 25, 289, nB28:102 Kierkegaard considers the sense in which he has “triumphed over martensen“ and the sense in which “the Kierkegaardian polemic has annihilated martensen.” see also SKS 23, 289-92, nB18:58 and SKS 23, 332-3, nB19:5. in this last entry Kierkegaard discusses “the difference between prof. martensen and me.” 146 SKS 22, 386, nB14:68 / JP 6, 6547. 147 SKS 23, 111, nB16:27. 148 SKS 22, 325–8, nB13:85, 86.a–86.h. 149 Pap. ii a 597 / JP 5, 5225. SKS 17, 49, aa:38 / KJN 1, 43. SKS 18, 83, FF:38 / KJN 2, 76. 150 “Bookstores, publishers and antiquarian shops,” in niels thulstrup, The Copenhagen of Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1986 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 11), p. 49. 151 SKS 22, 325–8, nB13:85, 86.a–86.h. see also SKS 23, 179-80, nB17:23 / JP 6, 6595. 152 SKS 22, 304–5, nB13:49. SKS 23, 174-5, nB17:16. 153 SKS 23, 332, nB19:4 / JP 6, 6655. on the relationship between Kierkegaard and martensen, see also SKS 22, 303, nB13:46–47 and SKS 23, 401, nB20:21. see martensen’s role in Kierkegaard’s “crazy comedy,” SKS 23, 465-6, nB20:137 / JP 3, 3573. 154 Pap. X–6 B 103–93, pp. 129–93. Many of these references are identified here, but not all of them. 144

250

Curtis L. Thompson

the Kierkegaard–martensen relation, which this article in no sense is providing, would have to include an analysis of Kierkegaard’s bitterness and envy, possibly employing some of rené girard’s work on scapegoating to good effect. a few days after martensen published his Christian Dogmatics, Kierkegaard published his The Sickness Unto Death. this writing, by anti-Climacus, gives us Kierkegaard’s most mature articulation of his theological anthropology.155 Faith is the means by which the self enters into relation to God and allows itself to benefit from the relationship with the divine fountain of possibilities. the self is potentiated because it is open to possibilities. the formula for this, “in relating itself to itself and in willing to be itself, the self rests transparently in the power that established it,”156 bears striking resemblance to Martensen’s definition of virtue or striving freedom in his Outline to a System of Moral Philosophy, which reads: “it is virtue, striving freedom, which relates itself to itself as to that which does not exist in its own power,”157 that is, the human self relates itself to itself, and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another power, the divine other. Sickness also includes a reference to “speculative dogmatics,” which could be referring to martensen.158 Kierkegaard is outraged with “the public,” and this outrage is not unrelated to the role he sees the church playing within that structured cultural system of leveling that robs people of their passion and individuality. in 1850 Kierkegaard notes: “the established order indeed has an atlas [Atlas] in professor martensen, a man in satin [Atlask].”159 in that same year Kierkegaard published his Practice in Christianity. in that work, of course, he does not refer directly to martensen, but a draft from 1849–50 spoke of prof. martensen and his direct communication.160 Kierkegaard also recounted a conversation on october 22, 1850 with Bishop mynster after he had read Practice, in which mynster had told him:“yes, half of the book is an attack on martensen, the other half on me.”161 Kierkegaard told martensen that in about two years time the established order will thank him for having published the book.162 and it is very surprising that in 1851 Kierkegaard evidently still had hope of winning martensen over to his side.163 When this did not happen, Kierkegaard likely figured he needed to take more drastic action. the theme of “the church” had been a major part of martensen’s theological perspective really from the beginning of his writing and became even more central after 1841. therefore, Kierkegaard’s criticisms of martensen during the 1840s see my “From presupposing pantheism’s power to potentiating panentheism’s personality: seeking parallels between Kierkegaard’s and martensen’s theological anthropologies,” Journal of Religion, vol. 82, 2002, pp. 225–51. 156 SKS 11, 130 / SUD, 14. 157 martensen, Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System, p. 75. (english translation: Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, p. 295.) 158 SKS 11, 209 / SUD, 97; see also note 38 on SUD, p. 179. 159 SKS 24, 80, nB21:128. 160 Pap. X–5 B 54. this entry is included in PC, supplement, pp. 330–1. 161 SKS 24, 72-4, nB21:121 / JP 6, 6691. see also SKS 25, 58-9, nB26:54 / JP 6, 6813. 162 SKS 24, 392-3, nB24:114. on Kierkegaard’s comment about reading Practice in Christianity in order to be proven right against martensen,” see Pap. X–5 B 111. 163 SKS 24, 405-6, nB24:130. 155

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

251

can be understood as being in some ways directed against the church, at least in an indirect sense. His “attack on the Church” that now bursts forth in the 1850s represents a change in strategy for Kierkegaard but is not a complete departure from his earlier protests. The action he finally takes assumes the form of a corrective. throughout his authorship Kierkegaard had been presenting the ideal, and in the pseudonyms the presentation had assumed the form of indirect communication. now it was time for direct communication. the task at hand was to reintroduce Christianity into Christendom, to restore the Christian religion to its new testament form. “Christianity is praxis, a test of character.”164 “without imitation, Christianity is mythology, poetry.”165 many have been disappointed and repulsed by the onesidedness of Kierkegaard’s “attack.” However, fully aware of its one-sidedness, he saw that as an essential aspect of a corrective.166 Kierkegaard, self-aware and intentional in carrying out his attack, had by no means lost his mind, as some think had to be the case. The first part of his authorship was dedicated to giving an account of how an individual became a Christian; the primary concern of the second part of his body of writings was to demonstrate how a person lives as a Christian.167 the attack on Christendom should be understood as the last chapter in carrying out that second concern. Bishop J.p. mynster died on January 30, 1854. at a memorial service for mynster held the sunday before mynster’s funeral, February 5, martensen referred to mynster as an authentic witness to the truth. this sermon was promptly published. 168 the funeral for mynster followed on February 7. martensen’s published sermon agitated Kierkegaard’s caustic pen, resulting in an initial article and other notebook entries, some of which would be used in the public attack.169 With Mynster’s death, Martensen, as “the country’s supreme Bishop, the official authority,”170 becomes the focus of the attack, and Kierkegaard can write that Bishop martensen must bear the responsibility for the confused religious condition of the time.171 at other points Kierkegaard pronounces that the attack is against mynster though through martensen.172 it is he who catalyzed the 21 articles Kierkegaard published in the Fædrelandet. The first insinuation Kierkegaard made in his first SKS 24, 249, nB28:43. SKS 24, 238, nB23:60 / PJ, 550. 166 SKS 22, 194–5, nB12:97 / PJ, 408. 167 niels thulstrup, “the Contemporary reception of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript and the external Circumstances, in Kierkegaard Literary Miscellany, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1981 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 9), p. 146. 168 Hans lassen martensen, Prædiken, holdt i Christiansborg Slotskirke paa 5. Søndag efter Hellig Tre Konger, Søndag før Biskop Dr. Mynsters Jordefærd, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzels Bo og arvinger 1854. excerpts of martensen’s sermon are included in M, supplement, pp. 359–60. 169 Pap. Xi–3 B 31. Pap. Xi–3 B 38. Pap. Xi–3 B 49. Pap. Xi–3 B 89. Pap. Xi–3 B 208. 170 Pap. Xi–3 B 134. 171 Pap. Xi–3 B 225. 172 SKS 26, 420-1, nB36:19. 164 165

252

Curtis L. Thompson

attacking article was that martensen’s memorial address was indeed appropriately so labeled, “since it calls to mind prof. martensen for the vacant bishopric.”173 the theme of “going further” from Kierkegaard’s and martensen’s early days is utilized here near the end of Kierkegaard’s life in characterizing the professor’s contribution to the process of leveling.174 Kierkegaard had his first article finished by the end of February, 1854, but he held off publishing it, not wanting to interfere with the process of replacing mynster. The king finally appointed Martensen on April 15, 1854, and he was ordained as bishop on Pentecost, the first Sunday of June. Kierkegaard remained in restraint mode for six months, writing all the while in his notebooks. on 18 december, Kierkegaard’s restraint came to a close and his polemic against the established church began in earnest. More fuel was placed on the fire near the end of December when martensen reintroduced the “witness” theme in a sermon at an ordination service for two bishops.175 Kierkegaard’s attack begins, then, on december 18, 1854, and it continues through the tenth and last installment of The Moment which was completed by september 1855. while the whole attack is against martensen, some articles are especially focused on him. Kierkegaard’s reason for attacking the church had been larger than martensen’s public reference to mynster as a witness to the truth, but that was clearly the instigating event. a march 1855 self-assured assessment of the damage done, however, definitely overestimates the effect of the attack on the new bishop.176 The same sort of despondent melancholy hiding behind hoped-for efficacy characterizes another 1855 entry.177 throughout months of direct attack martensen remained silent, just as he had in relation to Kierkegaard’s indirect attack of him via the pen of Johannes Climacus.178 He eventually published a single statement179 in response to the attack, however, and this prompted Kierkegaard to inscribe more entries in his notebook.180 on april 15, 1854, martensen was named successor to mynster as Bishop of zealand, and Kierkegaard penned a rather long entry on “martensen on the Bishop’s seat.”181 more notebook entries comment on martensen’s copying of mynster,182 his inheriting of mynster’s

“was Bishop mynster a ‘truth-witness,’ one of ‘the authentic witnesses to the truth’—is This the Truth?” in SV1 Xiv, 5-6, p. 5 / M, 3–8, p. 3. see also Pap. Xi–3 B 197 and SKS 26, 76-9, nB31:103. 174 Pap. Xi–6 B 57 / JP 6, 6947. (Translation slightly modified.) 175 see M, supplement, p. 625, note 57. Kierkegaard’s responses to this are in Pap. Xi–2 a 252 / JP 6, 6938. Pap. Xi–2 a 307. Pap. Xi–3 B 31. Pap. Xi–3 B 49 / JP 6, 6875. Pap. Xi–3 B 82. Pap. Xi–3 B 89. Pap. Xi–3 B 95. Pap. Xi–3 B 134. Pap. Xi–3 B 138. Pap. Xi–3 B 140. Pap. Xi–3 B 159. Pap. Xi–3 B 168. Pap. Xi–3 B 202. Pap. Xi–3 B 211. 176 Pap. Xi–3 B 134 / M, supplement, p. 546. 177 Pap. Xi–3 B 99 / M, supplement, p. 505. 178 Pap. Xi–3 B 107. this entry is entitled “Bishop martensen’s silence or a Contribution to a Characteristic of the witnesses to the truth.” 179 martensen’s article is included in M, supplement, pp. 360–6. 180 Pap. Xi–3 B 82. Pap. Xi–3 B 89. Pap. Xi–3 B 107. Pap. Xi–3 B 142. 181 Pap. Xi–3 B 89. see also Pap. Xi–3 B 159. 182 Pap. Xi–3 B 51. 173

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

253

tradition,183 his low level of Christian proclamation,184 his continuing inauthenticity,185 his ineffective form of leadership,186 his plunging in headfirst administratively,187 his lack of creativity that evokes sympathetic flattery through using the pathetic term “shepherd” for bishop,188 his wooing of the numerical,189 and his officiousness and busyness intended to divert attention away from having to die.190 and on the theme of death it irks Kierkegaard to think about the reception martensen will receive upon his death, that he too will be buried as a witness to the truth.191 Kierkegaard can flippantly write that he does not “ascribe to Bishop Martensen as a thinker any other worth apart from being a user of the thoughts of others,”192 but his preoccupation with martensen’s recognition of him suggests otherwise. Kierkegaard thought enough of martensen to be deeply troubled by the fact that martensen had not found occasion to make himself acquainted with Kierkegaard’s writings.193 very telling for an attempt to articulate martensen as a source for Kierkegaard is the latter’s statement that martensen “is himself well aware of my knowledge of his whole career.”194 that is why Kierkegaard is so irritated at martensen’s claim that he has not become knowledgeable of Kierkegaard’s work, a claim that Kierkegaard finds quite preposterous, as becomes clear from a March, 1855 notebook entry.195 addressing martensen in the personal, direct form of address, Kierkegaard writes, as if speaking to an other who is very important to his person and whose acknowledgement and respect he desperately desired and needed: we see that you, Herr professor, are a distinguished man, indeed we all see and know this. But you, professor martensen, precisely you, especially since as Christianity’s proclaimer [you] ought to have a much deeper understanding of life, would that you might have seen that i also am a distinguished man. only there is the difference that the signs of distinction that i bear, do not, as yours, sparkle with the brilliance of the moment—but only in historical perspective appear as what they in truth are.196

Kierkegaard’s life was interestingly entwined with martensen’s. there is a sense that even at death he could not fully get away from the martensenian type. three Pap. Xi–3 B 89. Pap. Xi–3 B 89. Pap. Xi–3 B 107. 185 SKS 26, 171, nB32:75 / PJ, 614. 186 Pap. Xi–3 B 49 / JP 6, 6875. For another comment on the church leadership of mynster and martensen in relation to Christianity, see Pap. Xi–3 B 50. 187 Pap. Xi–3 a 257 / JP 6, 6942. 188 SKS 25, 316-7, nB29:31. 189 SKS 25, 12–4, nB26:6. 190 SKS 25, 416–7, nB30:43. 191 Pap. Xi–3 B 49 / JP 6, 6875. 192 Pap. Xi–3 B 134 / M, supplement, p. 544. 193 Pap. Xi–3 B 62. Pap. Xi–3 B 82. 194 Pap. Xi–3 B 134 / M, supplement, p. 545. 195 ibid. the issue had been raised a few years earlier too; see Pap. X–6 B 121 / JP 6, 6574. see also Pap. X–6 B 109. 196 Pap. X–6 B 138. 183 184

254

Curtis L. Thompson

years before his death Kierkegaard could foresee what his fate was going to be after he died: “I know who is going to inherit me, that figure to whom I am so deeply opposed, he who up to now has inherited all that is best and will continue doing so—namely the docent, the professor.”197 we professors are not the only ones to have inherited him but we are among those who have. so he was right. and it is now time for the professor to take even more liberties in what he has inherited. III. A General Interpretation of Kierkegaard’s Use of Martensen little space remains to offer an interpretation of Kierkegaard’s use of martensen as a source for his thinking and writing. i refer the reader to a discussion of “Martensen’s Influencing of Kierkegaard” for an earlier interpretive statement I offered on Kierkegaard’s use of martensen.198 Here we will simply mention works in the tradition of martensen interpretation and then draw some points of commonality between martensen and Kierkegaard. within three decades after martensen’s death in 1888, three books had appeared entitled “H.l. martensen.” v. nannestad’s early work on martensen sought “not so much a characterization of individual sermons as a picture—a portrait of that author-individuality which comes into view through these.”199 a second danish interpreter of martensen was his daughter Josepha martensen.200 C.i. scharling is the primary author of the third of these books, and his volume is a good introduction to his thought.201 the next two books to appear in denmark greatly elevated the level of intellectual sophistication informing the interpretation. in 1932 skat arildsen published his mammoth book that remains one of the two real highlights of martensen scholarship.202 the next year, 1933, J. oskar andersen published “Biskop H.l. martensen’s ungdom,”203 a long article that responded to arildsen’s dissertation. niels thulstrup published an important work on Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel.204 and in editing Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana with his wife maria mikulová thulstrup, contextual knowledge was extended and contributed to a deeper

SKS 25, 79, nB26:76 / PJ, 551. Between Hegel and Kierkegaard, pp. 58–70. 199 v. nannestad, H.L. Martensen: Nyt Bidrag til en Karakteristik af Dansk Prædiken i det nittende Aarhundredes sidste Halvdel, Copenhagen: schønberg 1897. 200 Josepha martensen, H.L. Martensen i sit Hjem og blandt sine Venner, Copenhagen: J. Frimodt 1918. 201 C.i. scharling, H.L. Martensen. Hans Tanker og Livssyn, Copenhagen: p. Hasse & sons 1928. 202 arildsen, H.L. Martensen. 203 J. oskar andersen, “Biskop H.l. martensen’s ungdom,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series vi, vol. 1, 1933, pp. 130–237. 204 niels thustrup, Kierkegaards Forhold til Hegel og til den spekulative Idealisme indtil 1846, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967. (english translation: Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hegel, trans. by george l. stengren, princeton: princeton university press 1980.) 197 198

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

255

comprehension of Kierkegaard in relation to his times. leif grane205 and Jens schjørring206 also contributed to a fuller understanding of Kierkegaard’s context. Hermann Brandt continued the history of this tradition with his book on martensen’s speculative theology.207 The first dissertation on Martensen in English was by Robert Leslie Horn.208 a second book in english that advanced the history of this tradition was Bruce H. Kirmmse’s valuable work on golden age denmark.209 Significant also was Joakim garff’s biography of Kierkegaard, published in denmark in 2000.210 one more book needs to be mentioned. the second of the two real highlights of martensen scholarship appeared with Jon stewart’s 2003 book reconsidering Kierkegaard’s relations to Hegel.211 Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered changes radically the landscape of Kierkegaard scholarship by having established through meticulous argument the complexity of his relations to Hegel and his followers. establishing this case alters the presuppositions out of which Kierkegaard scholars operate and lifts up martensen’s important place in Kierkegaard deliberations. A comment from long ago can provoke a final thought on Kierkegaard’s relation to martensen. scharling’s early work on martensen, in addressing the topic of “martensen and our time,” compared martensen and Karl Barth, whom he recognized as being in so many ways martensen’s “polar opposite”: “He wants to separate, where martensen wants to join; he wants to dig a ravine, where martensen wants to build a bridge.”212 “and yet,” he continues, “in the highest questions, in that which, so to speak, gets them off the ground and becomes the starting point for their entire point of view over against life, there is a deep unity.”213 Barth underscores the word about the living, sovereign, biblical god, over against the creaturely human whose glorious culture “is one great rebellion against god”: “away with every depraved human thought, shouts Barth, which wants to find God in the depths of leif grane, “det teologiske Fakultet 1830–1925,” in Københavns Universitet 1479–1979, vols. 1–14, ed. by leif grane et al., Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1980, vol. 5, Det teologiske Fakultet, pp. 325–495, especially pp. 328–82, which is on “the era of Clausen and martensen.” 206 Jens schørring, “H.l. martensen,” in Teologi og Filosofi. Nogle Analyser og Dokumenter vedrørende Hegelianismen i Dansk Teologi, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1974, pp. 27–35, and his “martensen,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 177–207. 207 Brandt, Gotteserkenntnis und Weltentfremdung. 208 Horn, Positivity and Dialectic: A Study of the Theological Method of Hans Lassen Martensen. 209 Bruce H. Kirmmse, Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press 1990, especially chapter 12 on “H.l. martensen,” pp. 169–97. 210 garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography. 211 stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered. 212 scharling, H. L. Martensen, p. 149. 213 ibid. 205

Curtis L. Thompson

256

the human spirit or in the heavenward flight of human thought or altogether any other place than in God’s own revelation!”214 then scharling asks if it was not “the same ordeal through which martensen struggled?...martensen [too] turns against those who want to think away their creatureliness and allow their human thought to penetrate into god’s mysteries outside of the ground of faith and revelation.”215 nonetheless there is a difference between martensen and Barth: Barth remains in dualism, while martensen seeks through faith to move beyond dualism to a higher synthesis and harmony; and Barth uses the thought of the Creator negatively to keep humans in dust and ashes, while Martensen uses it positively to affirm the human and the world.216 For martensen the god-relation is not just a limit but an empowering presence: “precisely as god’s creature, the human stands in an intimate connection with the entire created world, as a microcosmos amidst a macrocosmos; precisely as created in god’s image can the human on the ground of faith know god.”217 Faith potentiates the self in such a way that genuine knowledge is grasped in the god-relation, but the theological thematization of this is never going to be exhaustively carried out, no matter how longingly the human desires a knowledge that is comprehensive and absolute. martensen had this desire “for a comprehensive knowledge of existence, a harmonic view of the whole, where everything that has worth in human life, indeed in the universe, receives its place.”218 of course, the desire was not fulfilled: “It can be said that Martensen did not attain the completing of such a view of the whole, that it in many ways remained a glimpse; but his intention is definitely clear enough.”219 The comparison between these two significant theological figures, Martensen from the nineteenth century and Barth from the twentieth, is an interesting one. and if the comparison works with the early Barth, which is the Barth being described here in 1928, then it surely works with the later Barth of the Church Dogmatics. However, the intention here is not simply to lift up the martensen–Barth relation as intrinsically interesting in-and-of-itself, but rather to use it as an illustration of what we can learn about the Kierkegaard–martensen relation. martensen and Barth are very different theologically, and yet many points of connection and commonality can be evidenced between them. the typical depiction of the relation between Kierkegaard and Martensen is as one of volatility, hostility, conflict, bitterness, and strife. Our long discussion above in the first two parts of this article certifies that there is no doubt that such turbulence characterized the relation. But standing convinced that their relationship is finally to be understood as one of diastasis rather than synthesis does not preclude identifying ways in which these two creative thinkers shared common ground. in fact, their discord could not have developed to the level it did, had they not been in mutual agreement on many of the ways in which they perceived and understood their world. on the other hand, as with 214 215 216 217 218 219

ibid. ibid., pp. 149–50. ibid., p. 150. ibid. ibid., pp. 150–1. ibid., p. 151.

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

257

Barth and Martensen, the emphases of Kierkegaard and Martensen flowing from their affirmation of the Creature/creature distinction differ. Kierkegaard stresses how the infinite qualitative difference between God and the human, points to the absolute differentiation between these. Martensen also affirms the infinite qualitative difference between god and the human, but he stresses instead the natural relatedness of god to the human, and the possibility for nurturing this natural connection by means of the symbols and myths of religion into a religious relationship, with the religion of Christianity possessing the greatest potency for such nourishing. Kierkegaard, like Barth, continually employs dialectic, using its razor’s edge negatively to combat the ever-present human propensity toward selfishness, which sickness is finally labeled and understood religiously as sin, that is, as before or over against god. martensen again likewise makes use of dialectic, and while sometimes he employs a negative dialectic, more typically dialectic for him functions in a mediating way, in a way that, as grounded in faith, is able to reconcile opposites and issue in a positive result. my claim is that Kierkegaard was tuned to martensen as surely a and possibly the thinker among his danish contemporaries who most determined the thought-world or discourse in terms of which concerns should be considered and also who most determined the issues themselves to be dealt with. other danish contemporaries such as J.l. Heiberg, J.p. mynster, F.C. sibbern, and p.m. møller did much as well to shape Kierkegaard’s world of thought and his sense for which issues were truly important. Heiberg and sibbern were philosophers, and while the latter especially demonstrated concern for religious sensibilities, he was not quite on the cutting edge of theological thinking during Kierkegaard’s most productive literary years. mynster was the godfather-figure of Danish Christianity and since Kierkegaard’s youth had been a close acquaintance of Kierkegaard’s family, so he was to be respected, to be sure, so much so that the “attack on the church” was held off until after mynster’s death; however, Kierkegaard would have sensed that to a real extent time had passed mynster by, and his anti-rationalist supernaturalism, while to be preferred to a theologically mediating position such as that of martensen’s speculative theology, and the general theological position undergirding mynster’s daily ecclesial decisions, were no longer in tune with the thinking of the day. Of these most significant figures it was martensen who most set the agenda for Kierkegaard’s deliberations. of course, Kierkegaard would have never agreed with this judgment about how he proceeded in his deliberations of the late 1830s, 1840s, and early 1850s. as we have seen, Kierkegaard detested martensen and all the talk of a new age that has been heralded with his speculative theology grounded on the principle of mediation. and yet, at the end of the day in evaluating Kierkegaard’s writings, it is the thoughts of martensen which time and again most come to mind as establishing the discourse, not to be sure the particular points of view and nuances of thought and expression, but the discourse in which the thinking is carried out. Kierkegaard once wrote in his notebooks that in denmark “ ‘the system’ and the pseudonyms belong essentially together.”220 we might say that both Kierkegaard and Hegel are needed. But if one has entered into the writings of martensen and has an interest in theological construction, one might think it better to say that both 220

Pap. X–6 B 137.

258

Curtis L. Thompson

Kierkegaard and martensen are needed. we can learn from the danish romantic idealist who would not let go of the distinctiveness of Christian faith as a source of transformative experience. martensen was a theologian who strove to honor both the scientific-philosophical concerns of Hegel and German idealism and the existentialpersonal concerns of the religious individual. in 1928 C.i. scharling wondered both whether martensen’s star still dwells under the horizon, because his time has not yet come, and whether it will not soon rise up into the heavens, because an entirely new time is coming where there will be use precisely for “martensen’s thought—these thoughts which in clear and noble form lie concealed in his long series of writings, all the way from the treatise of his youth about Faust to the Ethics and his Levnet.”221 nearly four score years after scharling, we can ask the same. Kierkegaard learned much from martensen, and so can we.

221

scharling, H.L. Martensen, pp. 9–10.

Bibliography I. Martensen’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Prædikener, Collections 1–2, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1847–49 (ASKB 227) “Betragtninger over ideen af Faust. med Hensyn paa lenaus Faust,” in Perseus, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johan ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837–38, vol. 1, pp. 91–164 (ASKB 569). De autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticum nostri temporis introducta, Copenhagen: i.d. Quist 1837 (ASKB 648) (danish translation, cf. ASKB 651). Mester Eckart. Et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1840 (ASKB 649). Grundrids til Moralphilosophiens System. Udgivet til Brug ved academiske Forelæsninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 650). Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, trans. by l.v. petersen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 651) (translation of ASKB 648; cf. also ASKB a i 41). Den christelige Daab betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptistiske Spørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843 (ASKB 652). Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 653). Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 654). Den danske Folkekirkes Forfatningsspørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 655). Sendschreiben an den Herrn Oberconsistorialrath Nielsen in Schleswig: “Ein Wort über den Amtseid und die schleswig-holsteinische Geistlichkeit,” Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB u 77). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Martensen adler, adolph peter, Populaire Foredrag over Hegels objective Logik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1842, p. 6; p. 32, note; p. 164, note; p. 165, note (ASKB 383). anonymous, “[review of] dr. H. martensen: Den christelige Daab, betragtet med Hensyn paa det baptiske Spørgsmaal,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 2, no. 81, 1847, columns 461–3 (ASKB 321–325).

260

Curtis L. Thompson

—— “om gudstjenestens indretning i den lutherske Kirke. et Forsøg i den praktiske theologie af H. martensen (universitetsprogram ved reformationsfesten 1853),” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 430, 1853, columns 860–2. Bornemann, Johan alfred, Om den protestantiske Theologies Betydning, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, pp. 25–2; p. 327 (ASKB u 24). Brøchner, Hans, Nogle Bemærkninger om Daaben, foranledigede ved Professor Martensens Skrift: “Den christelige Daab,” Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1843, pp. 37–61 (ASKB u 27). eiríksson, magnús, Den nydanske Theologies Cardinaldyder, belyste ved Hjelp af Dr. Martensens Skrifter samt Modskrifterne, tilligemed 75 theologiske Spørgsmaal, rettede til Dr. H. Martensen, Copenhagen: Chr. steen & søns Forlag 1850 (ASKB 476). görres, Joseph von, Die Triarier H. Leo, Dr. P. Marheinecke, Dr. K. Bruno, regensburg: verlag von g. Joseph manz 1838 (ASKB 533). gude, l. “dr. martensens prædikener,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 69, 1847, columns 257–64. Hagen, Johan Frederik, Ægteskabet. Betragtet fra et ethisk-historiskt Standpunct, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1845, p. 16, note; p. 154, note (ASKB 534). Heiberg, Johan ludvig, “recension over Hr. dr. rothes treenigheds- og Forsoningslære,” in Perseus, vols. 1–2, ed. by Johan ludvig Heiberg, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1837–38, vol. 1, pp. 1–90, see pp. 34–5; p. 38; p. 41 (ASKB 569). Helveg, l., “prof. martensens dogmatik og dens angribere,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 229, 1850, columns 345–57; vol. 5, no. 230, 1850, columns 369–73. mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852– 53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 2, p. 116; p. 135; p. 138 (ASKB 358–363). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1840, p. 43, note; p. 100, note; p. 138, note (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 92 (ASKB 698). —— Mag. S. Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensens “Christelige Dogmatik.” En undersøgende Anmeldelse, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 701). —— Dr. H. Martensens dogmatiske Oplysninger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 703). Ørsted, Hans Christian, Aanden i Naturen, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: andr. Fred. Høst 1850, p. 47 (ASKB 945). paludan-müller, Jens, Om Dr. Martensens christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 709). stilling, peter michael, Om den indbildte Forsoning af Tro og—Viden med særligt Hensyn til Prof. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik.” Kritisk-polemisk Afhandling, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 802). thomsen, grimur, Om den nyfranske Poesi, et Forsøg til Besvarelse af Universitetets æsthetiske Priisspørgsmaal for 1841: “Har Smag og Sands for Poesi gjort

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

261

Frem- eller Tilbageskridt i Frankrig i de sidste Tider og hvilken er Aarsagen?,” Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1843, p. 87, note (ASKB 1390). wengel, l., Om academiske Anliggender, Copenhagen: i Commission hos H.C. Klein 1844, pp. 19–20 (ASKB u 109). zeuthen, ludvig, Om den christelige Tro i dens Betydning for Verdenshistorien. Et Forsøg, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag 1838, p. 10, note; p. 19, note (ASKB 259). —— Humanitet betragtet fra et christeligt Standpunkt, med stadigt Hensyn til den nærværende Tid, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandling 1846, p. 48 (ASKB 915). —— Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852, p. 77, note; p. 142, note; p. 147, note (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Martensen andersen, J. oskar, “Biskop H.l. martensens ungdom,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 6, vol. 1, 1933, pp. 130–237. arildsen, skat, H.L. Martensen. Hans Liv, Udvikling og Arbejde, Studier i det 19. Aarhundredes danske Aandsliv, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1932. —— “His theological examination,” in Kierkegaard as a Person, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1983 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 12), pp. 63–71. B., “martensen und Kierkegaard,” Nordisches Telegraph, vol. 2, no. 89, 1850, pp. 1095–6. Bertelsen, otto, “martensens dogmatik og dens angribere,” in his Dialogen mellem Grundtvig og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1990, pp. 58–9. Birkedal, vilhelm, Kampen er staaende: Et Svar til Biskop Martensen, odense: milo 1857. —— Forsvar imod Biskop Martensens “Jeg veed ikke hvad,” odense: milo 1864. Brandt, C.J., “martensen, Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 35, no. 33, 1880, columns 521–32. Brandt, Hermann, “martensen und Kierkegaard,” in his Gotteserkenntnis und Weltentfremdung. Der Weg der spekulativen Theologie Hans Lassen Martensens, göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht 1971, pp. 240–7. Brøchner, Hans, “erindringer om søren Kierkegaard,” Det Nittende Aarhundrede, Maanedsskrift for Literatur og Kritik, march, 1876–77, § 21. —— Nogle Bemærkninger om Daaben, foranledigede ved Professor Martensens Skrift: “Den christelige Daab,” Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1843. Bukdahl, Jørgen, “The Moment and the Common man,” in his Søren Kierkegaard and the Common Man, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2001, pp. 111–30. (originally as “Øjeblikket og den menige mand,” in his Søren Kierkegaard og den menige mand, Copenhagen: munksgaard 1961, pp. 100–16.) Caron, Jacques, “H.l. martensen,” in his Angoisse et Communication chez S. Kierkegaard, odense: odense university press 1992, pp. 46–56.

262

Curtis L. Thompson

Christensen, arild, “efterskriftens opgør med martensen,” Kierkegaardiana, vol. 4, 1962, pp. 45–62. Czakó, istván, “das unbekannte. die aufhebung der klassischen theologia naturalis in der negativen theologie des Johannes Climacus,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 235–49. Fenger, Henning, Kierkegaard, the Myths and Their Origins. Studies in the Kierkegaardian Papers and Letters, trans. by George C. Schoolfield, New Haven and london: yale university press 1980, p. 14; p. 18; p. 28; p. 33; pp. 69–70; p. 93; p. 98; pp. 136–8; pp. 141–3; p. 220. (originally as Kierkegaard-Myter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) Fich, a.g., “martensen, Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Theologisk Tidsskrift, 1880, pp. 385–416. gerdes, Hayo, “mynster und martensen,” in his Sören Kierkegaards Einübung im Christentum. Einführung und Erläuterung, darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982, pp. 61–5. gosse, edmund, “Bishop martensen,” The Expositor, 3rd series, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 59–68. grane, leif, “det teologiske Fakultet 1830–1925,” in Københavns Universitet 1479–1979, vols. 1–14, ed. by leif grane et al., Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1980, vol. 5, Det teologiske Fakultet, pp. 325–499, especially pp. 328–81 which is on “the era of Clausen and martensen.” green, ronald m., Kierkegaard and Kant: The Hidden Debt, albany: state university of new york press 1992, pp. 5–7; p. 14; p. 17; p. 116; p. 209; p. 215; p. 218; p. 246, note 26; p. 286, note 18. Hagen, Johan Frederik, “Mester Eckart, et Bidrag til at oplyse Middelalderens Mystik, by dr. H. martensen. Copenhagen: reitzel 1840, 153 pag. 8o,” Fædrelandet, vol. 1, no. 279, september 13, 1840, columns 2237–42. Hannay, alastair, Kierkegaard: A Biography, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2001, pp. 50–2; p. 80–9; pp. 93–100; p. 106; p. 148; p. 161; p. 210; p. 215; pp. 230–2; p. 243; pp. 248–9; p. 285; p. 370; pp. 384–6; p. 391; pp. 401–2; pp. 405–8; pp. 421–2; pp. 425–7; p. 449; pp. 451–3; p. 457; p. 463; p. 468; p. 470; p. 485; pp. 487–8. Horn, robert leslie, Positivity and Dialectic: A Study of the Theological Method of Hans Lassen Martensen, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 2), pp. ix–x; pp. 1–4; p. 12; p. 30; p. 53; p. 56; p. 79; p. 88; pp. 98–9; p. 117; p. 141; p. 144; pp. 150–1; p. 181; p. 188; p. 202; pp. 217–20; pp. 224–8; pp. 233–6. Høffding, Harald, “Heiberg og martensen,” in his Danske Filosofer, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel 1909, pp. 129–37. —— Søren Kierkegaard som Filosof, Copenhagen, p.g. philipsens Forlag 1892, pp. 18–21. Jensen, l.C., “martensen, s. Kierkegaard og grundtvig,” Kirken og Hjemmet. Kristeligt Ugeblad, vol. 9, no. 27, 1908, pp. 418–25.

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

263

Jørgensen, Carl, Søren Kierkegaard. En biografi med særligt henblik paa hans personlige etik, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1964, vol. 4, pp. 91–164. Kirmmse, Bruce H., Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. by Bruce H. Kirmmse and virginia r. laursen, princeton: princeton university press, 1996, pp. 196–205; pp. 323–4. —— Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press 1990, pp. 169–97; p. 330; p. 450; pp. 483–5; p. 503, note 129. Kleinert, markus, “martensens rezension von Heibergs einführungsvortrag,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2003, pp. 506–22. —— Sich verzehrender Skeptizismus. Läuterungen bei Hegel und Kierkegaard, Berlin and new york: walter de gruyter 2005 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 12), pp. 63–8; pp. 144–7; p. 157; pp. 158–9; p. 163. Kofoed-Hansen, H.p., Dr. S. Kierkegaard mod Dr. H. Martensen: Et Indlæg, Copenhagen: C.g. iversens Forlag 1856. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950, p. 33; p. 78; p. 103; p. 106; p. 110; p. 114; p. 145; p. 155; p. 177; p. 186; p. 196; pp. 203–4; p. 207. lacoste, Jean-yves, “Kierkegaard face aux théologies de son temps,” in Kierkegaard, ed. by Jean Brun, paris: eurographic 1981 (special number of Obliques), pp. 103–7. lein, Bente nilsen, “Biskop martensen og den etisk-kristelige sosialisme: H.l. martensens tanker om den ‘ethiske socialisme’ som kristelig alternative til økonomisk liberalisme og revolusjonær socialisme,” Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 81, 1980, pp. 233–47. lowrie, walter, “martensen and mynster,” in his Kierkegaard, london: oxford university press 1938, pp. 504–23. —— A Short Life of Kierkegaard, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1942, pp. 4–5; pp. 227ff.; p. 241; p. 243. lübcke, poul, “guds og verdens visdom. troen og forargelsen hos Kierkegaard, mynster og martensen,” Filosofiske Studier, vol. 14, 1994, pp. 131–95. malik, Habib C., Receiving Søren Kierkegaard. The Early Impact and Transmission of His Thought. washington, d.C.: Catholic university press of america 1997, p. 21; p. 44; pp. 56–64 passim; pp. 71–2; p. 81; p. 83; pp. 90–112 passim; pp. 122–3; p. 131; pp. 174–5; pp. 178–90 passim; p. 193; p. 197; pp. 200–3; pp. 207–8; p. 212; p. 216; pp. 221–8 passim; p. 263; p. 270; pp. 274–5; pp. 306–10 passim; pp. 315–17 passim; p. 322. neiiendam, michael, “martensen, mynster og Kierkegaard,” in H.L. Martensen. Hans Tanker og Livssyn, ed. by C.J. scharling, Copenhagen: p. Haase & søns Forlag 1928, pp. 94–127. nielsen, rasmus, Mag. S. Kierkegaards “Johannes Climacus” og Dr. H. Martensens “christelige Dogmatik”. En undersøgende Anmeldelse, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849. pattison, george, Kierkegaard, Religion and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2002, pp. 96–115.

264

Curtis L. Thompson

plekon, michael, “Kierkegaard, the Church and theology of golden-age denmark,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 34, no. 2, 1983, pp. 245–66. poole, roger, “a last appeal to martensen,” in his Kierkegaard. The Indirect Communication, Charlottesville and london: university press of virginia 1993, pp. 262–9. reuter, Hans, S. Kierkegaards religionsphilosophische Gedanken im Verhältnis zu Hegels religionsphilosophischem Systems, leipzig: verlag von Quelle & meyer 1914 (Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, vol. 23), see pp. 68–74. rohde, peter, “mynster—martinsen—eller sammenstødet med kirken,” in his Et geni i en købstad. Et essay om Søren Kierkegaard, oslo: det norske studentersamfunds Kulturutvalg oslo 1956, pp. 33–6. rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950, pp. 26–33. scharling, Carl emil, “Den christelige Dogmatik, Fremstillet af dr. H. martensen. anmeldt af dr. C.e. scharling under Hensyn til Mag. S. Kierkegaards ‘Johannes Climacus’ og Dr. H. Martensens ‘Christelige Dogmatik’. En undersøgende Anmeldelse af r. nielsen, professor i philosophien. Om den indbildte Forsoning af Tro og Viden, med særligt Hensyn til Prof. Martensens “christelieg Dogmatik”. Kritisk-polemisk Afhandling af mag. p.m. stilling. Om Dr. Martensens christelige Dogmatik, af J. paludan-müller, residerende Capellan ved Budolphi Kirke i aalborg,” Nyt Theologisk Tidsskrift, vol. 1, 1850, pp. 348–75. schiørring, Jens H., Teologi og Filosofi. Nogle Analyser og Dokumenter vedrørende Hegelianismen i Dansk Teologi, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1974, pp. 27–35. —— “martensen,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 177–207. scopetea, sophia, Kierkegaard og græciteten. En kamp med ironi, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1995, see p. 12; p. 92, note 76; p. 98, note 9; p. 169; p. 273, note 43. söderquist, K. Brian, “irony and Humor in Kierkegaard’s early Journals: two responses to an emptied world,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2003, pp. 143–67. —— “Kierkegaard’s Contribution to the danish discussion of ‘irony,’ ” Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin and new york: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 78–105, see also pp. 106–45. stewart, Jon, “Kierkegaard’s Criticism of martensen in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, tome 45, nos. 1–2, 2001, pp. 133–48. —— “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, pp. 106–145. —— Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003. —— “the paradox and the Criticism of Hegelian mediation in Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 184–207.

Martensen: A Speculative Theologian Determining the Agenda of the Day

265

—— A History of Hegelianism in Golden Age Denmark, tome ii, The Martensen Period: 1837–1842, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 3). sponheim, paul r., Kierkegaard on Christ and Christian Coherence, new york: Harper & row 1968 (Masters of Modern Theology Series, ed. by Jaroslav pelikan), pp. 58–66. suances marcos, manuel, Sören Kierkegaard, vols. 1–2, madrid: universidad nacional de educación a distanca 1997 (Vida de un filósofo atormentado), vol. 1, pp. 237–44. teisen, n., Kort Indlæg i Sagen mellem S. Kierkegaard og H.L. Martensen. Et Lejlighedsskrift, Copenhagen: Karl schønbergs Forlag 1884. thompson, Curtis l., “H.l. martensen’s theological anthropology,” in Faith, Knowledge and Action, ed. by g.l. stengren, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1984, pp. 199–216 (reprinted in slightly modified form in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, pp. 164–180). —— The Logic of Theonomy: Hans Lassen Martensen’s Theological Method, ph.d. thesis, Chicago: university of Chicago 1985. —— “From presupposing pantheism’s power to potentiating panentheism’s personality: seeking parallels Between Kierkegaard’s and martensen’s theological anthropology,” Journal of Religion, vol. 82, 2002, pp. 225–51. thompson, Curtis l. and david J. Kangas (trans. and eds.), Between Hegel and Kierkegaard: Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, atlanta: scholars press 1997, pp. 1–71. thulstrup, marie mikulová, “plato’s vision and its interpretation,” Kierkegaard’s Classical Inspiration, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 14), pp. 63–103. thulstrup, niels, Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hegel, trans. by george l. stengren, princeton: princeton university press 1980, pp. 43–5; pp. 91–6; pp. 133–50. —— Commentary on Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. by robert J. widenmann, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1984. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard. Afsluttende uvidenskabelige Efterskrift, ed. with inrtroduction and commentaries by niels thulstrup, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1962.) —— “martensen’s dogmatics and its reception,” Kierkegaard and the Church in Denmark, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1984 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 13), pp. 169–97 (reprinted in slightly modified form in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, pp. 181–202). tjønneland, eivind, Ironie als Symptom. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Søren Kierkegaards Über den Begriff der Ironie, Frankfurt am main: peter lang 2004 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik, vol. 54), pp. 280–8.

266

Curtis L. Thompson

torralba roselló, Francesc, “la dogmática especulativa de martensen,” in his Amor y diferencia. El Misterio de dios Kierkegaard, Barcelona: promociones y publicaciones universitarias 1993, pp. 288–300. —— “las raíces históricas del problema: las lecciones sobre Dogmática especulativa de martensen,” in his Poética de la libertad Lectura de Kierkegaard, madrid: Caparrós editores 1998, pp. 141–55. van munster, H.a., “marheineke, martensen, schleiermacher,” Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, den Haag: lannoo 1963, pp. 109–17. vergote, Henri-Bernard, Lectures philosophiques de Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard chez ses contemporains danois. Textes de J.L. Heiberg, H.L. Martensen, P.M. Møller, F.C. Sibbern, F. Beck et S.A. Kierkegaard, paris: presses universitaires de France 1993 (Philosophique D’ajourd’hui). waaler, arild, and Christian Fink tolstrup, “Philosophical Fragments—in response to the debate between mynster and martensen,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 208–34.

Jakob peter mynster: a guiding thread in Kierkegaard’s authorship? Christian Fink tolstrup

I. Jakob Peter Mynster: Kierkegaard’s Opponent One of the most significant discussion partners for Søren Kierkegaard was Bishop Jakob Peter Mynster (1775–1854). Mynster was the central figure in the church in denmark in the middle of the nineteenth century. He was the architect behind the transformation from the state Church to the people’s Church and thus left his stamp on the danish people’s Church. the same is true of his reconciliatory theology. mynster had a central place in the church in his opposition to rationalism, which was his real intellectual challenge. on the other side stood the pietistic pastors and preachers, who together with the pastor n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872), constituted a threat to the church’s institutional unity and existence. From his childhood home mynster was vaccinated against pietism, which his stepfather had given him a strained introduction to. mynster’s theology strived for a consensus, which sought to contain both rationalists and pietists within the framework of the church. it is the thesis of this article that Kierkegaard attempts, throughout his authorship, to direct a criticism against this consensus. Mynster made both a broad and a deep influence on the contemporary conception of Christianity. it was broad since with his preaching and theology he reached a wide audience. Already in his first position as pastor in Spjellerup, Mynster published his sermons.1 this publication had a resonance in Copenhagen, and—together with the treatise “remarks on the art of preaching”2—played its part in making him well known in the capital. later mynster published a popular dogmatics, which, under the title Observations on the Christian Doctrines of Faith, spread through the entire country and was later translated into swedish and german.3 in particular, this work and later collections of sermons meant that mynster’s congregation in effect covered the entire country. Moreover, Mynster had great influence on a number of pastors Jakob peter mynster, Prædikener, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1826–32 [1810]. Jakob peter mynster, “Bemærkninger om den Konst at prædike,” in Forhandlinger ved Sjællands Stifts Landemode, 1810. (reprinted in Jakob peter mynster, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852–53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 1, pp. 81–129 (ASKB 358–363). 3 Jakob peter mynster, Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, vols. 1–2, 2nd ed. Copenhagen: deichmann 1837 [1833]. 1 2

268

Christian Fink Tolstrup

since he already the following year, in 1811, came to Copenhagen and became instructor in psychology at the pastoral seminary. later as the Bishop of zealand’s diocese (1834–54), he had direct authority over the pastors and not least of all access to the King’s Chancellery, and thus to the creation of laws for the Church. Before mynster was named bishop in 1834, he became dr. theol. in 1815 and was able, alongside his work as a pastor, to produce various scholarly works, primarily in the fields of patristics and exegesis.4 From 1817 mynster was a member of the board of directors of the university of Copenhagen, and the certain path to the bishop’s chair received an extra nudge when he, in 1826, became court preacher in Christiansborg Castle Church. mynster’s theology is strongly stamped by being a reaction to rationalism. this was his point of departure which also led to his personal breakthrough experience,5 the decisive significance of which is seen, among other things, in his repeated return to it throughout his authorship. mynster’s personal breakthrough was a recognition that the conscience is a compelling factor. religion is a relation without reservations. or, as Kierkegaard also later remarks, no one can serve two masters. moreover, his reaction to rationalism has the significance that what is special about Mynster’s theology can be found in anthropology. the ability and possibility of human beings to believe is particularly what catches his attention. therefore, it is not by accident that his important treatise, “analysis of the Concept of Faith” from 1821, received a special position as the lead article in his Blandede Skrivter.6 even if mynster’s personal new discovery also concerns Christology, the main focus is on anthropology. n.m. plum, who has written perhaps the most interesting biography of mynster, sketches the principle in mynster’s theology as follows: “it is a matter of finding the steps along the way to faith. in an intuition of something higher and a longing towards it, in the drive towards god, the urge, which consists of fear and love in an indissolveable bond, god is grasped with reason and conscience; the will grasps what it knows, and then we have faith.”7

mynster became doctor of theology with the treatise, De ultimus annis muneris Apostolici a Paulo gesti. like mynster’s other works in patristics and exegesis, it is written in latin and has not been translated. perhaps this is one of the reasons why this part of his authorship has not been the object of intrest in the research but is merely mentioned in the secondary literature. (reprinted in Blandede Skrivter, vol. 5, pp. 533–76.) 5 Cf. Jakob peter mynster, Meddelelser om mit Levnet, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1854, pp. 150–4. in spite of the fact that this book is not found in Kierkegaard’s book collection, we know that he had it in hand. at its publication Kierkegaard received a copy as a gift from mynster’s son. Kierkegaard, however, returned the book with the remark that after mynster’s death he could not accept it. whether Kierkegaard read the book is uncertain, although probable. 6 Jakob peter mynster, Udvikling af Begrebet Tro, Copenhagen: det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab 1821 (Blandede Skrivter, vol. 1, pp. 1–35.); cf. mynster Bidrag til Læren om Drifterne, Copenhagen: det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab 1827, (Blandede Skrivter, vol. 1, pp. 149–201). 7 n.m. plum, Jakob Peter Mynster som Kristen og Teolog, Copenhagen: gad 1938, p. 132. 4

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

269

the drive is implanted in the human being by god and is therefore the primary expression of the revelation. the drive is a striving in the soul for rest, an urge towards peace. these various expressions of the soul’s direction, supplemented with the fear of death and judgment, unite the longing which leads humans to religion. mynster thinks that the relation between longing and revelation is reciprocal. it is a matter of grasping as well as being grasped. the revelation is only revelation when it reveals something, and this something is reason and conscience. mynster understands reason as the ability to know the religious. it is this ability with which human beings conceive the supersensible. Conscience reminds humans of duty and the difference between good and evil. since both reason and conscience come from god, it is impossible for them to lead one astray. reason is in principle determined religiously and therefore longs slumbering for the word of Christ. reason and revelation have the same origin in god and therefore cannot lead to different ends. the same thing can be said about conscience [samvittighed], which mynster defines as “co-knowing [samviden] with god.” reason and conscience jointly form a consciousness about what the revelation says and a knowledge of the duty to yield before it. Faith is then the will encompassing the striving and consciousness. this harmony and continuity between revelation and consciousness (reason and conscience) that we find in Mynster awakens a fundamental opposition in Kierkegaard. plum thus puts into relief the question about harmony in mynster: “to posit a gap between reason and revelation would be to make a split between the Father and Christ.”8 this is particularly worth noting since much of the present theological criticism of Kierkegaard distances itself from his radical emphasis on discontinuity. one might say that this kind of criticism of Kierkegaard effectively takes mynster’s side in their dispute. II. Jakob Peter Mynster and the Attack on the Church mynster is especially known in relation to Kierkegaard due to the so-called attack on the Church, which was played out in a couple of newspapers,9 and in Kierkegaard’s own journal, The Moment.10 it is generally known that the controversy began with Kierkegaard’s articles in the newspaper Fædrelandet, where the first article was published on december 18, 1854, and the 21st and last article was published on may 26, 1855. the controversy continued on may 24, 1855, when Kierkegaard published the first number of The Moment, and ended, in the first instance, with his death on november 11, 1855. (However, this was followed up with the tenth issue of The Moment, which lay ready for printing at his death but was only published in 1881.) the newspaper debate in 1854–55 did not bring into focus anything essentially new in the relation between mynster and Kierkegaard. thus, Kierkegaard did not initiate the debate in order to add something new to his criticism of the Church or mynster. But martensen’s eulogy for mynster, in which he designated the deceased bishop a “witness to the truth,” occasioned Kierkegaard to go directly on the attack 8 9 10

ibid., p. 155. see Kierkegaard, Bladartikler 1854–55, in SVI Xiv, 5–100 / M, 1–85. see Kierkegaard, Øieblikket 1–10, in SVI Xiv, 127–364 / M, 87–354.

270

Christian Fink Tolstrup

against the Church’s new people. it was primarily aimed against Hans lassen martensen (1808–84), who succeeded mynster in the bishop’s chair. in his articles in Fædrelandet Kierkegaard with a sharp and ironic pen is scathingly critical of the Church and the conception of Christianity which he had criticized for many years. what is new is not the criticism but rather its form. He gave up the indirect criticism, which was supposed to give mynster the possibility of accepting his view. By criticizing mynster’s theology without mentioning the bishop by name, Kierkegaard sought to create a forum, where mynster could still have a sympathetic disposition towards the author. this kind of sympathy never materialized. instead, Kierkegaard chose to attack the Church and those responsible for it directly with journalistic articles,11 that is, short, aphoristic pieces, shaped by Kierkegaard’s sharp pen, which, with many repetitions and forceful images, were designed to create a tone which the men of the Church could not ignore. now it was no longer mynster, but martensen, who bore the brunt of the criticism. therefore, the attack on the Church is only an attack on mynster indirectly. However, one can find many new individual scattered pieces of information about Kierkegaard’s disposition towards mynster by reading these articles. But for the most part there is nothing new here for someone who has already read Kierkegaard’s journals or his works with the idea in mind that one also finds there a criticism of mynster. this was, however, impossible for his contemporaries to do since the journals were not published until well after Kierkegaard’s death. one can suspect that this was one of the reasons why Kierkegaard repeated his views in this direct manner. For these reasons, it is not with The Moment articles that one should start if one wants to find the central controversies between Mynster and Kierkegaard. As we will see, these controversies appear earlier in Kierkegaard’s authorship and concern central theological issues. III. Three Key Discussions with Jakob Peter Mynster in the Published Works one can without doubt show that there are several corresponding discussions in Kierkegaard’s authorship apart from the ones i will discuss here. i draw attention only to the discussions which i have become aware of in my research. i am convinced, however, that one would be able to carry out similar analyses in several of Kierkegaard’s writings. A. prefaces Kierkegaard’s short satirical work Prefaces constitutes the scene for the first public exchange of words between Kierkegaard and mynster. “public” is perhaps too strong since Kierkegaard wrote the work under the pseudonym nicolaus notabene and refers to mynster under his pseudonym, “kts.”—a pseudonym formed by the middle Cf. Jørgen Bonde Jensen, Jeg er kun en digter. Om Søren Kierkegaard som skribent, Copenhagen: Babette 1996, p. 7.

11

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

271

letters in his name: Jakob peter mynster. Kierkegaard dedicates the discussion in “preface vi” to the question of how one should preach to the educated.12 the question is raised by Hans peter Kofoed-Hansen (1813–93), the author of a review of Either/Or, which claimed that “the Church has not yet figured out how to seize hold of the more educated.”13 the reviewer especially points out the church’s lack of authority as the essential problem since modern people wish to construct their own meaning for themselves. He suggests that the church take this criticism ad notam and give its preaching a “philosophical bath.” Kofoed-Hansen especially points to two problems which the renewal of the church’s preaching should focus on. the one is the trivial “cobbler morality” which ran rampant from the church’s pulpit during the rationalist period and still continued to be heard from the pulpits all over the country. there were too many pedestrian ideas which were not raised up above the common parlor chit-chat. the second problem is, according to Kofoed-Hansen, that the church makes a mistake about the age by preaching Christianity in an old form. it is not enough for modern educated people to hear Christianity preached by repeating clichés from previous ages. the new philosophy—speculation—must be sworn in and allowed to influence the train of thought and the terminology in the preaching. mynster allowed himself to be provoked by this and responded to it with an article in which he completely rejected the criticism.14 mynster responds sharply to Kofoed-Hansen’s claim that “the Church has not yet figured out how to seize hold of the more educated.” mynster asks if people such as Chrysostom, augustine, luther, and schleiermacher may be regarded as educated theologians, who also understood how to speak to the educated. and if one reads the preface to mynster’s own collection of sermons,15 one will have no doubt that he regarded himself as fulfilling the conditions which are demanded for preaching to the educated. Mynster thus responds fundamentally to Kofoed-Hansen’s criticism—that the pastors do not preach for the educated—with the opposite claim, that in fact they do. moreover, mynster claims that if one visits the Copenhagen churches, one will see that in fact the educated sit in the pews sunday morning. nicolaus notabene, the author of “preface vi,” enters the scene with something that looks like a defense of mynster. when nicolaus notabene writes that mynster’s work no longer satisfies the educated, it must be understood between the lines that it did so earlier. this is the support that Kierkegaard gives to mynster. generally, “preface vi” has exclusively been interpreted as Kierkegaard’s support of mynster. For example, niels thulstrup writes, “it is most probable that the pseudonym nicolaus notabene’s ‘preface’ number 6 is to be understood as SKS 4, 493–6 / P, 31–4. H.p. Kofoed-Hansen, “Enten-Eller. Et Livs-Fragment udgivet af victor eremita,” For Literatur and Kritik. Et Fjerdingeaarsskrift, ed. by Fyens stifts literære selskab, vol. 1, no. 4, 1843, pp. 377–405. 14 Jakob peter mynster, “Kirkelig polemik,” Intelligensblade, vol. 4, nos. 41–2, January 1, 1844, pp. 97–114. 15 Jakob peter mynster, Prædikener paa alle Søn- and Hellig-Dage i Aaret, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1837 [1823] (ASKB 229–230). 12 13

272

Christian Fink Tolstrup

Kierkegaard’s indirect expression of gratitude and recognition to mynster, and a clear criticism of Kofoed-Hansen.”16 it is clear that Kierkegaard is critical towards KofoedHansen, and in the relation between Kofoed-Hansen and mynster, Kierkegaard is on mynster’s side. But yet one must suspect that the matter is more complicated than this, when one considers that the Philosophical Fragments, which was written at the same time, contains a decided criticism of mynster (discussed below). nicolaus notabene raises a question about Kofoed-Hansen’s and mynster’s conception of what the edifying really is. He begins by making a satire of mynster’s style. Nicolaus Notabene makes fun of Mynster’s idea that for one’s edification, one should take out a sermon on sunday and read it aloud. perhaps in this way one will not come to forget what one has read in the course of the week. Nicolaus Notabene is skeptical about the idea of edification because he thinks that the educated person must first be “reconstituted in order to be edified.”17 thus one cannot go directly to edification. Nicolaus Notabene says that Mynster is right, and stands together with mynster against Kofoed-Hansen in the view that when one speaks for edification, one speaks to the single person, the individual. But mynster’s basic idea—that there is something to be awakened in the individual— nicolaus notabene speaks against. mynster thinks that the sermon should speak to the individual’s heart, to conscience, and “what belongs to the human being’s nature and essence should be awakened, nourished and educated. thus also the deep desire in the human heart, which only the gospel of Christ stills. let us strive to speak to this desire.”18 Kierkegaard agrees with mynster that in speaking to the heart, one speaks to the individual, but he raises the question whether there is something in the individual that can be awakened. Educated people must first be reconstituted before it makes sense to edify them. around the same time as Prefaces Kierkegaard published Four Edifying Discourses. according to the discourse, and in opposition to mynster, a reconstituting must precede edification. This is necessary because the human being does not know, as Mynster claims, his desire for God. This desire for God must first be identified, recognized, and perhaps even established. In the discourse “On the occasion of a Confession” Kierkegaard claims that no one can come to know god without first being a sinner.19 the point of mynster’s rejection of Kofoed-Hansen’s idea of taking a “philosophical bath” is that mynster does not think that man comes to Christian faith with the help of philosophical arguments. on the contrary, the task is to awaken, nourish, and educate an original desire in the human being. and this is true not only for a common religious desire but for “the deep desire in the human heart, which

16 niels thulstrup, “mynster,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 15–69, see p. 39. 17 SKS 4, 494 / P, 32. (Translation slightly modified.) 18 mynster, “Kirkelig polemik,” p. 110. 19 SKS 5, 396 / TD, 15.

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

273

only the gospel of Christ stills.”20 mynster regards the deep desire as being right at hand. in the discourse “to need god”21 Kierkegaard emphasizes that the human being cannot know god immediately. to know god is something that must be learned. The human being must first recognize his barrenness: “the highest is this: that a person is fully convinced that he himself is capable of nothing, nothing at all.”22 this implies a contradictory relation between mynster and Kierkegaard. mynster preaches in order to awaken a slumbering faith, while Kierkegaard wants to draw attention to the fact that there is nothing to awaken. For Kierkegaard, the goal of this self-denial is that the individual should “sink down into your own nothingness and surrender yourself to grace and disgrace.”23 with this Kierkegaard wants to point out that mynster confuses and makes unclear what salvation ultimately is. this shows how central a theological debate it was which played itself out between mynster and Kierkegaard. in the Journal JJ Kierkegaard formulates his view in an epigrammatic way, and directs his criticism specifically against Kofoed-Hansen24: “the task is not, as human stupidity believes it is: to justify Christianity to men, but rather to justify oneself to Christianity.”25 this formulation appears again, almost word for word, in the edifying discourse “on the occasion of a Confession.”26 Here Kierkegaard argues that the edifying—seeking god—is to be one in silence. this is thus in line with mynster’s edifying “quiet hour,” an expression which runs through mynster’s sermons and observations, and which Kierkegaard often ironically refers to. But, for Kierkegaard, silence means that the individual is placed vis-à-vis god as pure, in opposition to the human being’s own impurity. that means that the silence before god becomes the occasion for knowledge of oneself as a sinner. nicolaus notabene mentions explicitly two of mynster’s discourses in “preface vi.” it is therefore appropriate to cast a glance at them in order to see how mynster’s thought about edification goes in the direction of education. In the first discourse mentioned by Nicolaus Notabene, “The Hour of Devotion’s goal,”27 mynster emphasizes the goal as follows: “the hours of devotion are partly determined for instruction, so that with their reasonable use we should progress in Christian knowledge.”28 thus the weight lies on the instruction, and mynster says further that it is natural for the soul to aspire to knowledge, certainty, and clarity. the difficulties experienced by the soul in seeking the truth are described as a sleep. The

mynster, “Kirkelig polemik,” pp. 110–11. SKS 5, 291–316 / EUD, 321–2. 22 SKS 5, 17 / EUD, 307. 23 ibid. 24 Cf. SKS, K18, 332. 25 SKS 18, 209, JJ:216 / KJN 2, 192. 26 SKS 5, 411 / TD, 32. 27 Jakob peter mynster, Prædikener paa Søn- og Hellig-Dage i Aaret, vols. 1–2, 3rd ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1837, vol. 1, pp. 1–14 (ASKB 229–230). 28 mynster, Prædikener paa Søn- og Hellig-Dage, vol. 1, p. 4. 20 21

274

Christian Fink Tolstrup

soul lies in slumber and must therefore be woken up. and this happens by the fact that the preacher can “convince” and “clarify.”29 the second discourse, which nicolaus notabene refers to in “preface vi” bears the title, “that we should not be offended.”30 the point here is that offense is identified with falling asleep, and health or salvation therefore is awakening the seeking one from sleep. Kierkegaard in his edifying discourses defines edification differently. In the discourse “one who prays aright struggles in prayer and is victorious—in that god is victorious”31 Kierkegaard gives an account of his conception of the condition for the god relation. the main idea is the rather shocking but well-known idea that one must lose in order to win: “would thought, no matter how long it pondered, be able to think out a greater certainty of victory than this—that the loss is a victory?”32 this thought—in spite of its recognizability from the gospels—directly opposes both Kofoed-Hansen and mynster. the discourse teaches: the sensate person will not understand what the highest is, will not understand what the good fight is, what it is to be victorious and to lose, will not, because, praise god, the poorest and simplest child who received the most meager education in the charity school—he knows it very well....But the sensate person’s self-love is too narrow-minded to want to be grasped by the highest; it is useless for anyone to think of making the highest comprehensible to him by means of fine words, to think of tricking him into it by a pious fraud....it is true and will always be true that virtue is the highest sagacity and aspires to sagacity, but even if someone, in order to win him, were to expound this, he still would never win him to virtue; if that is to happen, the sensate person’s conception of sagacity would first have to be completely altered.33

according to the discourse, the sensate person who desires sagacity and education must first lose this sagacity and desire for sagacity before he can approach what is the highest. Therefore, edification must first be lost. The goal is namely not to grasp the highest but to be oneself grasped by the highest.34 The person must first renounce his own striving in order for god to be able to talk to him: only when he himself becomes nothing, only then can god illuminate him so that he resembles god. However great he is, he cannot manifest god’s likeness; god can imprint himself in him only when he himself has become nothing. when the ocean is exerting all its power, that is precisely the time when it cannot reflect the image of heaven, and even the slightest motion blurs the image; but when it becomes still and deep, then the image of heaven sinks into its nothingness.35

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

ibid., p. 6. ibid., vol. 2, pp. 416–29. SKS 5, 361–81 / EUD, 377–401. SKS 5, 361 / EUD, 377. SKS 5, 363–4 / EUD, 379–80. SKS 5, 363 / EUD, 379. SKS 5, 380 / EUD, 399.

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

275

where Kofoed-Hansen and mynster agree about demanding an explanation, Kierkegaard thinks that god should be preached as the one who shows himself by the one seeking him being transfigured and the transfiguration is that he reflects god’s image.36 At the same time as he was finishing Prefaces, Kierkegaard wrote his occasional discourses, among others, “on the occasion of a Confession,”37 which we have looked at above. Confession is defined fundamentally as seeking God. Kierkegaard claims in part that “without purity no human being can seek god,” and partly that “without becoming a sinner no human being can come to know him.”38 these two claims fall outside the picture we receive of mynster’s theology, and must therefore be conceived as an alternative or even a criticism of mynster. several years after the hidden debate with Kofoed-Hansen and mynster in Prefaces, Kierkegaard writes in his journal that from the beginning he made it clear that he and mynster disagreed and that the disagreement concerned how one should preach.39 it should not be done with worldly wisdom. Kierkegaard refers to mynster several times later, after Prefaces, in the form of the abbreviation kts. this happens again on 9 may 1845, where Kierkegaard in an article in Fædrelandet, no. 1883,40 asks not to be praised by unqualified reviewers. He would gladly be praised but only by, for example, “that masterful, most reverential writer under the pseudonym Kts.”41 in “a First and last explanation” in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, mynster is mentioned again as “the pseudonym Kts.” in a reference to the discussion in Prefaces.42 once again Kierkegaard draws attention to the fact that mynster misunderstands his intentions when mynster confuses discourses with sermons.43 For Kierkegaard, what is at stake is the relation between the ethical categories of immanence vis-à-vis the Christian categories. put differently, the issue concerns the difference of whether one is a poet or an edifying speaker. it is a distinction which Kierkegaard fundamentally attempts to bring out in his controversies with mynster. B. philosophical Fragments Philosophical Fragments has traditionally been tied to Kierkegaard’s criticism of Hegel’s system. However, it has recently been shown that Kierkegaard was instead more occupied with Hegel’s danish disciples, among others, Hans lassen martensen.44 the historical context in which Philosophical Fragments finds itself is a debate about mediation. the question about mediation involves the question SKS 5, 380 / EUD, 400. SKS 5, 391–418 / TD, 9–40. 38 SKS 5, 396 / TD, 15. 39 Pap. X–6 B 218, pp. 348–9. 40 SV1 Xiii, 418–21 / COR, 24–7. 41 SV1 Xiii, 421 / COR, 26. 42 SKS 7, 572 / CUP1, 629. 43 SKS 7, 233 / CUP1, 257. 44 Cf. Jon stewart, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, new york and Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003. 36 37

276

Christian Fink Tolstrup

about incarnation, and thus Christology. i believe that Kierkegaard in Philosophical Fragments presents his Christology as a critical alternative to both martensen’s speculative mediation and mynster’s concept of incarnation. in 1839 mynster published an article entitled “rationalism. supernaturalism.”45 in this piece mynster defends the concepts rationalism and supernaturalism as reasonable logical alternatives in theology. He does this in response to the opposite view, namely, that these positions were “antiquated,” a view which was set forth in a review of martensen’s treatise on autonomy.46 mynster concludes his argument with a defense of the aristotelian principle of “the excluded middle.” with this principle in hand, mynster rejects the Hegelian idea of mediation, which became the focus of the subsequent debate that took place between mynster and martensen. martensen responded in the same year47 and claimed, contrary to mynster, that it is precisely the task of theology to “grasp the identity of what is contradictory for the understanding.”48 theological knowledge means, for martensen, that one goes from faith to knowledge. Martensen identifies the Christian revelation as “both supernatural and not supernatural.” mediation in martensen recalls that which Mynster defines as the “rational supernaturalism.” three years would pass before mynster in 1842 responded to martensen’s article, and here he primarily repeats his arguments from the first article.49 the incarnation is, according to martensen, the outstanding example of mediation. the divine and the human come together in the god-man. in Philosophical Fragments Kierkegaard introduces the “paradox” as his attempt to understand the incarnation. the paradox is juxtaposed to mediation as an alternative to it. Jakob peter mynster, “rationalisme. supranaturalisme,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur and Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 249–68. (reprinted in Blandede Skrivter, vol. 2, pp. 95–115.) (english translation: “rationalism, supernaturalism,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, trans. and ed. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: museum tusculanum press 2009 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 5), pp. 93–109.) 46 Johan alfred Bornemann, “af martensen: de autonomia conscientiae. Sui humanae,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur and Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 1–40. (english translation: “review of martensen’s de autonomia conscientiae,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, pp. 57-91.) 47 Hans lassen martensen, “rationalisme, supranaturalisme og principium exclusi medii: (i anledning af H.H. Biskop mynsters afhandling herom i dette tidsskrifts forrige Heft),” Tidsskrift for Litteratur and Kritik, vol. 1, 1839, pp. 456–73. (english translation: “rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, pp. 127–43.) 48 martensen, “rationalisme, supranaturalisme og principium exclusi medii,” p. 457. (“rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii,” p. 130.) 49 Jakob peter mynster, “De principio logico exclusi medii inter contradictoria non negligendo commentatio, qua ad audiendam orationem...invitat. Jo. Fr. Herbart, gottingae 1833. 29 s. 8º, De principiorum contradictionis, identitatis, exclusi tertii in logicis dignitate et ordine commentatio. scripsit i.H. Fichte, Bonnae 1840. 31 s. 8º” Tidsskrift for Litteratur and Kritik, vol. 7, 1842, pp. 325–52. (reprinted as “om de logiske principer,” in Blandede Skrivter, vol. 2, pp. 116–44.) (english translation: “on the laws of logic,” in Mynster’s “Rationalism, Supernaturalism” and the Debate about Mediation, pp. 155-79.) 45

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

277

around the same time that mynster published his article, Kierkegaard began to write Philosophical Fragments. it is natural to assume that the two positions (hypothesis a and hypothesis B) which are set forth in Philosophical Fragments correspond to the two positions which are being discussed by mynster and martensen. Climacus’ A hypothesis bears some similarity to Mynster’s definition of rationalism, and hypothesis B shows clear traces of Mynster’s definition of supernaturalism. therefore, it is natural to regard the B hypothesis in Philosophical Fragments as a defense of mynster’s position. However, it is clear upon closer analysis that it is the B hypothesis, the old, unreasonable supernaturalism which both martensen and mynster distance themselves from, which lies closest to Climacus’ definition of Christianity. It is written about supernaturalism, that its standpoint is “historical, psychological and anthropological,”50 precisely the standpoint which Climacus takes from the beginning of Philosophical Fragments. Further, martensen characterizes this old form of supernaturalism as “a foreign authority for consciousness, an impenetrable mystery which could be grasped by faith but not by knowledge.”51 in contrast, the Philosophical Fragments defines the paradox as “so unreasonable that I would have to lock everything out of my consciousness in order to think of it.”52 the hypothesis B is thus similar to Martensen’s definition of the old supernaturalism, which Mynster calls “unreasonable supernaturalism” in opposition to “reasonable supernaturalism.” this means that mynster is not in agreement with the B hypothesis, Climacus’ definition of Christianity. what is surprising is now that this position, hypothesis B, is likewise not in agreement with what mynster would call “rational supernaturalism,” but, on the contrary, that which mynster distances himself from as being “unreasonable supernaturalism.” in other words, the conclusion must be that mynster’s position, in the alternative which Philosophical Fragments sets up, coincides with hypothesis a.53 For mynster there is a certain form of cooperation between faith and reason. reason is the corrupt human nature’s ability to receive the supernatural.54 Conscience tells, from deep within the human being, what his duty is and what he is to believe.55 reason and conscience thus precede faith and condition the possibility of faith. this means that the object of faith, which Climacus designates as “the paradox” is not in mynster’s view paradoxical but, rather, accessible to human reason. mynster thinks especially of the incarnation as a mediation, not of contradictories, which martensen, “rationalisme, supranaturalisme og principium exclusi medii,” p. 462. (“rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii,” p. 134.) 51 martensen, “rationalisme, supranaturalisme og principium exclusi medii,” p. 464. (“rationalism, supernaturalism and the principium exclusi medii,” p. 136.) 52 SKS 4, 251 / PF, 46. 53 the argument for this interpretation of the criticism of mynster in Philosophical Fragments is documented in detail in arild waaler and Christian Fink tolstrup, “Philosophical Fragments—in response to the debate between mynster and martensen,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 208–34. 54 mynster, Grundrids af den christelige Dogmatik in Blandede Skrivter, vol. 6, p. 151. 55 mynster, “den pligt, at troe,” in Betragtninger, vol. 2, pp. 63–74. 50

278

Christian Fink Tolstrup

are impossible to think together, but of opposites which precisely can be thought together and therefore do not result in a paradox. Hypothesis a in Philosophical Fragments comes to encompass not merely rationalism but both rationalism, mynster’s conception of supernaturalism and martensen’s conception of mediation. Climacus can be distinguished on a crucial point from the discussion between mynster and martensen, since their debate concerns the revelation as such, while Climacus is occupied with what role such a revelation might play for the transition from non-Christian to Christian. the perspective for Climacus is thus conversion, that is, how one becomes a Christian. the question is solved by mynster by assuming an immediate insight which is present in every human being, and the task of the revelation is to confirm this knowledge which one is already in possession of.56 mynster thus believes that he has solved the problem which plato presents in the dialogue the Meno, and which Philosophical Fragments, interestingly enough, likewise uses to formulate its main issue. it is the dilemma: how can one seek what one does not know. mynster and Climacus’ hypothesis a rely on the platonic answer, which is an idea about recollection, while Climacus’ B hypothesis rejects the socratic recollection and instead claims that the revelation represents an entirely new insight. Philosophical Fragments is thus not only a dispute with danish Hegelianism but at the same time a fundamental theological dispute about mynster’s concept of faith. Philosophical Fragments is therefore an important work for understanding the relation between Kierkegaard and mynster, even if it is often overlooked in the literature about this topic. C. practice in Christianity in connection with his work with The Sickness unto Death Kierkegaard toyed with the idea of publishing another work under the pseudonym anti-Climacus. it was to be entitled “Fundamental Cure” and, as a continuation of The Sickness unto Death, was supposed to express what Christianity is at bottom. the idea of “the Collected Works of Fulfillment”57 was not carried out as originally announced. But there are many things that indicate that Practice in Christianity is Kierkegaard’s attempt to realize the plan. in Practice in Christianity Kierkegaard develops his attempt at a Christology and a doctrine of reconciliation, which understands the fundamental healing as the forgiveness of sins. this happens as a contradiction of an ethically founded understanding of reconciliation as a supplement to human nature. this is the central question in Practice in Christianity. and it is my conviction that it is in the resulting opposition between Kierkegaard and mynster that we shall find an explanation for why Mynster became indignant when reading Practice in Christianity. Kierkegaard had a firm tradition of sending a copy of his recent works to Mynster. similarly, the bishop sent his works to Kierkegaard. Practice in Christianity was no 56 57

mynster, Grundrids af den christelige Dogmatik, in Blandede Skrivter, vol. 6, p. 151. SKS 21, 151, nB8:15 / JP 6, 6271.

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

279

exception in this respect. according to Kierkegaard’s diary entry from 22 october, 1850, Kierkegaard was told by mynster’s son-in-law, Just H.v. paulli (1809–65), that the bishop had come out of his office after having finished reading with an angry remark that “the book has made me very indignant; it is playing a profane game with holy things.”58 as we shall see, there were several good reasons, both personal and theological, for mynster to become indignant. in Practice in Christianity Kierkegaard juxtaposes imitation to admiration. Imitation is defined in opposition to the observing, distanced attitude, which—like nicodemus—observes Jesus from a distance, in opposition to the disciple who risks his life by following in the master’s footsteps. in this context Kierkegaard uses the term “observation,” with quotation marks. in a conversation from 11 october 1850,59 mynster revealed to Kierkegaard that he understood this criticism of “observations” as a criticism of himself. it is not an unreasonable assumption, which all later interpreters have also accepted, seeing that mynster was the author of the popular edifying work with the title Observations on the Christian Doctrines of Faith.60 Kierkegaard’s interest was, of course, not only concerned with the terminology but also with its use and meaning. thus, Kierkegaard attempts in Practice in Christianity to focus on the theological distinction between imitation and admiration, the existential experiential faith in Christ vis-à-vis intellectual and emotional enthusiasm. That Kierkegaard’s criticism hit deep is confirmed when one looks at the entries from the journals. in one entry from 1848 Kierkegaard writes that “m.[ynster] expresses the purely human in the most masterful way....on the other hand, he is certainly so alien to the decisively Christian that if he were to speak his mind on it, he might say: it is the demonic.”61 and “purely human” in this context should not be understood as a compliment but as an expression for a misunderstood conception of faith in Christ. to regard Christ in a distanced, objective fashion is to relate wholly humanly to him, and it is worth criticizing, according to Kierkegaard, because it leads to the demonic, the horror. the observing, human attitude is categorized in Practice in Christianity under the designation “gentle comfort.” the expression comes up repeatedly as something that Kierkegaard distances himself from: “the invitation to all ‘who labor and are burdened,’...did not come into the world as a showpiece of gentle comfort, as the preacher blubberingly and falsely introduces it—but as the absolute.”62 Kierkegaard opposed mynster’s mild consolation, which reduces the consolation of the gospels by lowering the demand. the conditions and the demand are made achievable, so that everyone can come along. in Kierkegaard’s eyes, this is mynster’s view of a gentle comfort, formulated with the latin expression ne quid nimis (nothing in excess). thus the difference between the state and the church is destroyed. Believing in Christ is no longer a special quality beyond being a citizen in the state. SKS 24, 72, nB21:121 / JP 6, 6691. ibid. 60 Jakob peter mynster, Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: deichmanns Forlag 1833. 61 SKS 21, 64, nB6:86 / JP, 1, 663. 62 SV1 Xii, 59 / PC, 62. 58 59

280

Christian Fink Tolstrup

Kierkegaard is not an opponent of a gentle comfort, but he does not want to begin with it. The gentle comfort is, for Kierkegaard, a result of first having become familiar with the horror, which is hidden in the knowledge of being a sinner. the consolation is the result of the consciousness of sin, the confession of sin and the forgiveness of sin. “that i feel the need for gentleness is admitted, but i owe it to the truth to confess that i feel this need precisely because i have been brought up with rigorousness and for a long, long time have lived under it—indeed, at any moment am under it again.”63 in other words, Kierkegaard thinks that mynster was “adulterating the criterion.”64 He writes: the counterfeit of using acorns for coffee is easily detected and is not dangerous. However, an example of more subtle counterfeiting is to use a portion less of the directed amount of meat for the soup and then substitute some seasoning. that actually was mynster’s brand of counterfeiting, and it is actually that kind of counterfeiting which is made so much of in just about every age under the name of orthodoxy, whereas it is far more dangerous than all the heresies and schisms.65

the criticism of mynster’s theology concerns, as has been often emphasized, the lack of fit between life and preaching. Mynster preached, according to Kierkegaard, one thing on sunday, and did something else on monday. there was no consistency between his life and doctrine. But Kierkegaard’s criticism cuts deeper and concerns mynster’s theology fundamentally, in both the sermons and the writings. with the ambiguous expression “recasting Christ [at digte Christus om],”66 Kierkegaard praises mynster for his oratorical and rhetorical beauty but at the same time points out the central problem in mynster’s theology, as being that he preaches another gospel, as paul puts it.67 according to Kierkegaard, the discussion with mynster from the beginning was concerned with this question. thus it is not a new or surprising theme that Practice in Christianity, or the late Kierkegaard, presents for mynster, but an old, familiar problem, which the two had often discussed in the bishop’s office.68 Practice in Christianity quotes on the title page the well-known words from Jesus in matthew 11:28: “Come Here, all you who labor and are burdened, and i will give you rest.” this is not merely the motto for the book but is in many ways made the object of thorough exegetical and theological analysis. if one opens up mynster’s Observations on the Christian Doctrines of Faith, one will first of all be met with the question: “Where shall my tired soul find peace?”69 even if there is nothing that can be criticized theologically in posing this kind of question, i think that it is an expression of the theology which Kierkegaard met in 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

SKS 12, 74 / PC, 226. SKS 25, 403, nB30:25 / JP 2, 1804. SKS 25, 409, nB30:34 / JP 6, 6880. SKS 12, 78 / PC, 66. ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, cf. galatians 1:6–9. Pap. X–6 B 218, pp. 348–9. Cf. also SKS 20, 222, nB2:210. mynster, Betragtninger, i, p. 1.

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

281

mynster, and which he in various ways distanced himself from, among other things, by, in large parts of Practice in Christianity, unfolding his understanding of the rest which is offered in Christ. mynster analyzes matthew 11:28 in a sermon with the title “the Comprehensibility of Christianity for everyone.”70 Here he interprets it such that everyone who has experienced anxiety and grief, and has a just and god-fearing thought, will receive the peace which Christ promises. in opposition to this moral understanding, where the focus is on the one seeking, Practice in Christianity understands matthew 11:28 as a promise which places weight on the one who brings the invitation, namely, Christ himself. it is due to Christ’s unconditioned love that there is peace to be found for the one who bears heavy burdens. therefore the motto on the title page of Practice in Christianity is followed up by the pagan statement: procul procul este profani (“away, away, o unhallowed ones”).71 For Kierkegaard, the rest is that which is found when one is conscious of oneself as a sinner, and at the same time is conscious that Christ gives peace and rest. the encounter with sin is therefore either to turn towards Christ as savior or to turn to one’s own conscience and seek justice there. and thus the judgment or the alternatives, according to Kierkegaard, are either “Come to me” or “away, away, o unhallowed ones.” mynster has, according to Kierkegaard, landed in this theological problem because he “recasts Christ.” where Kierkegaard comes closest to a description of his conception of the forgiveness of sin is when he speaks of a change from consciousness of sin to gentleness, grace, and mercy. the common problem is how one can be reconciled with one’s sin. and where mynster points to conscience and god’s merciful support and guidance, Kierkegaard points to consciousness of sin and forgiveness of sin. in other words, the horror is being placed vis-à-vis one’s sin, being confronted with one’s anxiety and perplexity. since Christianity does not make a mediocre challenge but an absolute one, one cannot avoid standing in the situation where one experiences oneself as a sinner: “But if the essentially Christian is something so terrifying and appalling, how in the world can anyone think of accepting Christianity?” very simply and, if you wish that also, very lutheranly: only the consciousness of sin can force one, if i dare to put it that way (from the other side grace is the force), into this horror. and at that same moment the essentially Christian transforms itself into and is sheer leniency, grace, love, mercy. Considered in any other way Christianity is and must be a kind of madness or the greatest horror.72

the consciousness of sin and the confession of sin is the access to Christianity. it is the entry to the change from the horror which sin awakens, a change which is described in Practice in Christianity with almost mystical concepts. with Christianity mynster, Prædikener paa alle Søn- og Hellig-Dage, ii, pp. 403–16; cf. Betragtninger, i, p. 269. 71 SKS 12 [13], 37 / PC [5], 23; virgil, Aeneid, Book vi, 258. 72 SKS 12, 79-80 / PC, 67. 70

282

Christian Fink Tolstrup

there occurs a change from being something horrifying to gentleness and grace. the criticism of mynster points to the problem that in his theology he never achieves the change. Therefore, he does not find the genuine gentleness, but must satisfy himself with the “purely human” gentleness, which does not lead to rest, but to being cast out, because there is no real forgiveness of sin to be found in it—procul este prophani. as conclusion to this introduction to the relation between Kierkegaard and mynster we can say that the attack on the Church is the culmination of a long series of events, where Kierkegaard criticized mynster’s theology and preaching. with the criticism, Kierkegaard attempted to get mynster to realize the correctness of the critique and not least of all yield to it. since that did not happen, for both known and not least of all unknown reasons, Kierkegaard chose, after mynster’s death, to unfold his direct criticism without beating around the bush in the newspaper articles. The conflict had thus begun long before. Now the fronts were drawn up sharply and recognized by all sides. it makes good sense to read Kierkegaard’s authorship as a dialogue with and against mynster. we have seen evidence of this with examples from Prefaces, Philosophical Fragments, and Practice in Christianity. i am convinced that one would be able to come to similar results if one were to give a close reading of, among others, Christian Discourses, Works of Love, and The Sickness unto Death. Translated by Jon Stewart

Bibliography I. Mynster’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Den christne Kirkes Stiftelse, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1852 (ASKB 172). Prædikener, 3rd ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1826–32 [1810–15] (ASKB 228). Prædikener paa alle Søn- ogHellig-Dage i Aaret, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1823 (ASKB 229–230; see also ASKB 2191–2192). Prædikener holdte i Kirkeaaret 1846–47, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1847 (ASKB 231). Prædikener holdte i Aaret 1848, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1849 (ASKB 232). Prædikener holdte i Aarene 1849 og 1850, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1851 (ASKB 233). Prædikener holdte i Aarene 1851 og 1852, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1853 (ASKB 234). Taler ved Præstevielser, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1840–51 (ASKB 235– 236). Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, vols. 1–2, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: gyldendal 1837 [1833] (ASKB 254–255). “anmærkninger til Brevet til galaterne,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens møller, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 19, 1831, pp. 327– 80 (ASKB 336–345). Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852–53 (vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57) (ASKB 358–363). Om Hukommelsen. En psychologisk Undersögelse, Copenhagen: Jens Hostrup schultz 1849 (ASKB 692). Den hedenske Verden ved Christendommens Begyndelse, Copenhagen: schultz 1850 (ASKB 693). the minutes of speeches made by mynster: —— “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? (Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen d. 11 og 12 avril 1849)” [the minutes of the debates in the parliament on april 11 and 12, 1849], Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 4, no. 189, 1849 [for the minutes of mynster’s speech], see columns 541–2 (ASKB 321–325). —— “Hvorledes bliver ‘Folkekirkens’ stilling? ii. Forhandlinger paa rigsdagen den 2 og 3 maj” [the minutes of the debates in the parliament on may 2 and 3], Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 190, 1849 [for the minutes of mynster’s speech], see columns 557–62 and columns 564–5. —— “om religionsfriheden udenfor den danske Folkekirke. et uddrag af rigsdagsforhandlingerne den 12. apr. samt 3. og 5. mai,” Dansk Kirketidende,

284

Christian Fink Tolstrup

vol. 4, no. 192, 1849 [for the minutes of mynster’s speech], see columns 590–1; columns 601–2 and vol. 4, no. 193, columns 614–16. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Mynster adler, adolph peter, Nogle Prædikener, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1843, p. 8, note; p. 29, note; p. 30, note; p. 51, note; p. 75, note; p. 79, note; p. 81, note; p. 86, note; p. 109, note (ASKB u 9). —— Skrivelser min Suspension og Entledigelse vedkommende, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845 (ASKB u 10). anonymous, [review of] “dr. J.p. mynster: Blandede Skrivter. 1 Bind. 1 Hefte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 346, 1852, columns 335–6. —— [review of] “dr. J.p. mynster: Blandede Skrivter. Første Binds andet Hefte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 362, 1852, columns 607–8. —— [review of] “dr. J.p. mynster. Blandede Skrivter, andet Binds første Hefte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 369, 1852, column 718. —— [review of] “dr. J.p. mynster, Prædikener holdte i Aarene 1851 og 52,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 383, 1853, column 92. —— [review of] “dr. J.p. mynsters Blandede Skrivter, tredie Binds første Hefte,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 401, 1853, columns 380–1. —— [review of] “dr. J.p. mynster: Blandede Skrivter. 3 Binds andet Hefte, hvormed samlingen er sluttet,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 411, 1853, columns 539– 40. Heiberg, Johan ludvig, “om Contradictions- og exclusions-principet,” in Prosaiske Skrifter, vol. 3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1843 (vol. 3, in Johan ludvig Heiberg, Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: J.H. schubothe 1841–43), pp. 349–73 (ASKB 1560). martensen, Hans lassen, De Autonomia conscientiæ sui humanæ in theologiam dogmaticam nostri temporis introducta, Copenhagen: i.d. Quist 1837, p. 47, note (ASKB 648). —— Den menneskelige Selvbevidstheds Autonomie i vor Tids dogmatiske Theologie, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841, p. 39, note (ASKB 651, translation of ASKB 648, cf. also ASKB a i 41). —— Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 3, note; p. 29, note; p. 251, note; p. 263, note; p. 309, note (ASKB 653). —— Den danske Folkekirkes Forfatningsspørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, p. 69 (ASKB 655). nielsen, rasmus, De speculativa historiæ sacræ tractandæ methodo commentatio, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1840, p. 44, note (ASKB 697). —— Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 92 (ASKB 698). Ørsted, Hans Christian, Aanden i Naturen, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: andr. Fred. Høst 1850, pp. 4ff. (ASKB 945). thortsen, Carl adolph, Historisk Udsigt over den danske Litteratur indtil Aar 1814, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839, pp. 134–5 (ASKB 970).

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

285

sibbern, Frederik Christian, Logik som Tænkelære fra en intelligent Iagttagelses Standpunct og i analytisk-genetisk Fremstilling, 2nd enlarged and revised ed., Copenhagen: paa Forfatterens Forlag trykt hos Fabritius de tengnagel 1835, p. 2; p. 267; p. 275; p. 303; p. 351 (ASKB 777). —— Dikaiosyne eller Bidrag til Politik og politisk Jurisprudents for Danske, i statsretlig, kirkelig og historisk Henseende, vol. 1, Copenhagen 1843, p. 127 (ASKB u 105). steffens, Henrich, Was ich erlebte. Aus der Erinnerung niedergeschrieben, vols. 1–10, Breslau: Josef max und Comp. 1840–44, vol. 2, p. 141; pp. 170–1; p. 174; pp. 181–2; vol. 5, p. 20; p. 67; p. 263; vol. 9, p. 265; p. 269; p. 273; p. 286; vol. 10, p. 354; p. 367; p. 424 (ASKB 1834–1843). zeuthen, ludvig, Om Ydmyghed. En Afhandling, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852, p. 8, note; p. 22; p. 27 (ASKB 916). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Mynster Brezis, david, Kierkegaard et les figures de la paternité, paris: les Éditions du Cerf 1999, pp. 24–33; pp. 66–8; pp. 98–104. Burgess, andrew J., “Kierkegaard and the Classical oratorical tradition,” in Kierkegaard and the Word(s). Essays on Hermeneutics and Communication, ed. by poul Houe and gordon d. marino, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2003, pp. 228–39. egelund møller, a., “søren Kierkegaard og Biskop mynster,” in his Søren Kierkegaard om politik, Copenhagen: Forlaget strand 1975, pp. 149–79. Fenger, Henning, Kierkegaard, the Myths and Their Origins. Studies in the Kierkegaardian Papers and Letters, trans. by George C. Schoolfield, New Haven and london: yale university press 1980, p. 18; pp. 28–9; p. 42; p. 59; p. 70; p. 73; p. 79; p. 84; p. 92; p. 101; p. 146; p. 177; pp. 215–20. (originally as KierkegaardMyter og Kierkegaard-Kilder. 9 kildekritiske studier i de Kierkegaardske papirer, breve og aktstykker, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1976.) Fink tolstrup, Christian, “‘playing a profane game with Holy things’ How Kierkegaard’s Critical encounter with Bishop mynster is to be understood,” in Practice in Christianity, ed. by robert l. perkins, macon, georgia: mercer university press 2004 (International Kierkegaard Commentary, vol. 20), pp. 245–74. gerdes, Hayo, “mynster und martensen,” in his Sören Kierkegaards Einübung im Christentum. Einführung und Erläuterung, darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982, pp. 61–5. Jørgensen, Carl, Søren Kierkegaard. En biografi med særligt henblik paa hans personlige etik, vols. 1–5, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1964, vol. 5. —— “skuffelsen fra Biskop mynster,” in his Søren Kierkegaards Skuffelser, Copenhagen: nyt nordisk Forlag arnold Busck 1967, pp. 51–3. Kirmmse, Bruce, Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, Bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press 1990, pp. 100–35.

286

Christian Fink Tolstrup

Kloeden, wolfdietrich von, “J.p. mynster und Kierkegaard,” Biographischbibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vols. 1–26, ed. by Friedrich wilhelm Bautz and traugott Bautz, 2nd unchanged ed., Hamm, Herzberg and nordhausen: Bautz 1990–2006, vol. 6 (1993), pp. 1375–85. Kornerup, Bjørn, Vor Frue Kirkes and Menigheds Historie, Copenhagen: gads 1929–30, p. 339; pp. 384–5. Kühle, sejer, Søren Kierkegaards Barndom og Ungdom, Copenhagen: aschehoug dansk Forlag 1950, see p. 18; p. 42; p. 56; p. 70; p. 76; p. 112; pp. 143ff.; p. 189; p. 196. lacoste, Jean-yves, “Kierkegaard face aux théologies de son temps,” in Kierkegaard, ed. by Jean Brun, [special number of] Obliques, paris: eurographic 1981, pp. 103–7. lowrie, walter, “martensen and mynster,“ in his Kierkegaard, london: oxford university press 1938, pp. 504–23. lübcke, poul, “guds and verdens visdom. troen and Forargelsen hos Kierkegaard, mynster and martensen,” in Filosofiske Studier, vol. 14, 1994, pp. 131–95. malik, Habib C., Receiving Søren Kierkegaard. The Early Impact and Transmission of His Thought, washington, d.C.: Catholic university of america press 1997, pp. 30–1; p. 61; p. 63; p. 77; pp. 80–96 passim; p. 102; p. 110; p. 112; pp. 119–21; p. 130; p. 134; pp. 221–7 passim; p. 244; p. 260; p. 306; p. 310; p. 315; p. 324. neiiendam, michael, “martensen, mynster og Kierkegaard,” in H.L. Martensen. Hans Tanker og Livssyn, ed. by C.J. scharling, Copenhagen: p. Haase & søns Forlag 1928, pp. 94–127. petersen, p.n., “søren Kierkegaard og hans store samtidige. i. mynster,” Liselundbogen 1914, Holstebro 1944, pp. 7–15. pizzuti, giuseppe mario, Invito al pensiero di Sören Kierkegaard, milan: grupp ugo mursia editore 1995, see pp. 45–52. plekon, michael, “Kierkegaard, the Church and theology of golden age denmark,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 34, no. 2, 1983, pp. 245–66. plum, niels munk, Jakob Peter Mynster som Kristen and Teolog, Copenhagen: gads Forlag 1938, pp. 7ff.; p. 47; p. 122; p. 178; pp. 188–9; p. 193; p. 199; p. 212; pp. 221–2; p. 245; p. 252; pp. 285ff.; p. 296. pommer, Bøje, “mynster,” in his Mellem ånd og åndløshed. Studier i Søren Kierkegaards journaler mv., [Copenhagen]: privately printed 2006, pp. 37–51. pontoppidan, morten, “mynster og søren Kierkegaard,” in his Dansk Kirkeliv i Mands Minde, Copenhagen and Kristiania: gyldendal 1916, pp. 9–23. presler, gerd, Kierkegaard und Bischof Mynster. Auseinandersetzung zweier Theologien, ph.d. thesis, university of münster, münster 1970. rasmussen, Jens, J.P. Mynster. Sjællands Biskop 1834–1854. Kampen for en rummelig Kirke. Forholdet til N.F.S. Grundtvig og Grundloven, odense: odense universitetsforlag 1999, p. 12; pp. 13ff.; pp. 22–3; p. 103; p. 105; pp. 243–4; p. 255. —— En Brydningstid. Kirkelige holdninger i guldalderperioden 1800–1850, odense: odense universitetsforlag 2002, p. 14; p. 16; pp. 45–52; p. 55; p. 101; p. 129, note 156.

Jakob Peter Mynster: A Guiding Thread in Kierkegaard’s Authorship?

287

rohde, peter, “mynster—martensen—eller sammenstødet med kirken,” in his Et geni i en købstad. Et essay om Søren Kierkegaard, oslo: det norske studentersamfunds Kulturutvalg oslo 1956, pp. 33–6. —— Søren Kierkegaard. An Introduction to his Life and Philosophy, trans. by alan moray williams, london: george allen & unwin 1963, see p. 16; p. 26; p. 98; pp. 122–6; pp. 129–38; pp. 143–5. (originally as Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: thaning & appel 1960.) rubow, paul v., Kierkegaard og hans Samtidige, Copenhagen: gyldendalske Boghandel nordisk Forlag 1950, pp. 13–14. —— “Kierkegaard og mynster,” in his Goldschmidt og Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1952, pp. 79–87. Schwanenflügel, H., Jakob Peter Mynster. Hans Personlighed og Forfatterskab, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: det schubotheske Forlag 1900–01, vol. 2, pp. 153–241. stewart, Jon, “Kierkegaard and Hegelianism in golden age denmark,” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, Berlin and new york: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 106–45. —— Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge: Cambridge university press 2003 (Modern European Philosophy), pp. 54–6; pp. 62–4; pp. 77–82; pp. 433–6; pp. 454–6. suances marcos, manuel, Sören Kierkegaard, vols. 1–2, madrid: universidad nacional de educación a distanca 1997, vol. 1 (Vida de un filósofo atormentado), pp. 237–44. thielst, peter, “rasmus nielsen og biskop mynster,” in his Livet forstås baglæns, men må leves forlæns. Historier om Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1994, pp. 255–60. thulstrup, niels, Kierkegaard’s Relation to Hegel, trans. by george l. stengren, princeton, new Jersey: princeton university press 1980, see p. 38 passim; p. 57; p. 136; p. 178; p. 314; p. 339. (originally as Kierkegaards Forhold til Hegel, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1967.) —— “mynster,” in Kierkegaard’s Teachers, ed. by niels thulstrup and marie mikulová thulstrup, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1982 (Bibliotheca Kierkegaardiana, vol. 10), pp. 15–69. waaler, arild and Christian Fink tolstrup, “Philosophical Fragments—in response to the debate between mynster and martensen,” Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook, 2004, pp. 208–34.

Just H.v. paulli: mynster’s son-in-law søren Jensen

Bishop Jakob peter mynster (1775–1854) was Kierkegaard’s preferred preacher. as bishop, he did not preach so often, and so pastor paulli in the Castle Church was one of the pastors, whom Kierkegaard liked to hear. For a time they took walks together and met each other, always falling into conversation.1 I. Paulli’s Life Just Henrik voltelen paulli (1809–65) was born in Copenhagen as the son of a supervisor at the “assistentshus,” the state institution responsible for pensions and loans.2 paulli was a student at the von westenske institute, where he was classmates with, among others, Hans lassen martensen (1808–84), with whom he became a very close friend and where he had the later Bishop gerhard peter Brammer (1801– 84) as a teacher.3 From here he went on to the university in 1827. the next year his father died, and paulli had to earn his living by giving instruction at the same time as he was studying theology at the university. He became an instructor at his old school, a position that he kept until 1834. during his time as a student at the university, he was occupied by the commotion regarding the Church, which came from the circle of people surrounding n.F.s. grundtvig (1783–1872); this was also true for martensen. He was affected by the criticism which was directed against rationalism from the side of orthodox and

Johannes Kok (ed.), “nogle Breve til Bishop g.p. Brammer,” Theologisk Tidsskrift for den danske Folkekirke, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1887, pp. 469–92. paulli writes: “earlier we used to take walks together,” p. 486. 2 this biographical information comes from “Just Henrik voltelen paulli,” Illustreret Tidende, no. 57, october 28, 1860; v. schousboe, “Just Henrik voltelen paulli,” in Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for Tidsrummet 1537–1814, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1898, vol. 12, pp. 573–6; Bjørn Kornerup, “Just Henrik voltelen paulli,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–27, ed. by povl engelstoft and svend dahl, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz 1933–44, vol. 18, pp. 31–4. 3 Hans lassen martensen, Af mit Levnet, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1882–83, vol. 1, p. 13; Bishop, Dr. theol. G.P. Brammers Ungdomsliv, ed. by Johannes Kok, Copenhagen: andr. schous Forlag 1884, p. 133. 1

290

Søren Jensen

Confessional theology, but it was first and foremost Mynster and his preaching which came to set its stamp on him. in 1833 he became cand. theol. and in 1835 catechist in the Church of the Holy spirit. it was an industrious time. the two others pastors in the church were old, and the work in the large congregation was to a large extent left to paulli. due to his straightforward form of preaching, he quickly had a large group of auditors. “the natural, [but] lively oral delivery, the unusual certainty and the words gushing forth from a faithful soul with inwardness and force grabbed and captivated the congregation,” as it was described in the Illustreret Tidende.4 martensen characterizes paulli as a preacher in the following manner: what contributed much to creating an entrée for paulli was his great strength of personality, which accompanied his words. there was in him a fund of love and mildness, which had an attractive and beneficial effect and won him many supporters. He preached the pure gospel with warmth and simplicity, in the best meaning of this word. His delivery was simple and natural with a pleasant voice and the language easy and beautiful like a forward-moving stream. it was far from any false rhetoric, be that in the direction of false loftiness or in the direction of false popularity or folksiness.5

even the Crown prince began to come to paulli’s services, and when the position of pastor in Christiansborg’s Castle Church became vacant in 1837, he was named to the post. then when the royal Confessor died a year later, paulli also received this position. Paulli was a figure who belongs to the time before the breakthrough of the cultural synthesis. He was culturally educated and well oriented in theology, and there was in principle no opposition between the world of culture and that of theology or the church. He had his natural place in cultural life. From his early days he belonged to the circle surrounding Johan ludvig Heiberg (1791–1860). “the beloved pastor paulli,” as mrs. Heiberg calls him, was also often a guest at the so-called “reading soirées” in the Heiberg home, where people gathered to hear a reading and discussion of a poetic work.6 paulli is known on one such occasion to have read aloud one of Carlo gozzi’s (1720–1806) “commedia dell’arte.”7 after Heiberg’s death, paulli manuscript to the article on paulli in Illustreret Tidende, no. 57, october 28, 1860. the royal library, nKs 3533 4o. 5 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, p. 15. martensen expressed himself in a similar fashion in his speech at paulli’s funeral: “over stiftsprovst, Kongelig Confessionarius dr. theol. Just Henrik paulli. i Frue Kirke den 17de Juli 1865,” in Hans martensen, Leilighedstaler. Samlede og ordnede af Forfatteren, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1884, pp. 419–31; p. 422. For a more detailed examination, see v. nannestad, Portraiter fra Kirken. J.H. Paulli. N.G. Blædel. Tredje Bidrag til en Karakteristik af dansk Prædiken i det nittende Aarhundredes sidste Halvdel, Copenhagen: Karl schønberg 1899, pp. 1–77. 6 Johanne louise Heiberg, Et Liv gjenoplevet i Erindringen, vols. 1–4, ed. by aage Friis, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1944, vol. 1, p. 219. 7 ibid., vol. 4, p. 321. according to Bibliotheca Paulliniana sive catalogus librorum quos reliquit Justus Henricus Paulli, dioceos Selandiæ præpositus, confessionarius regius, theol. dr., crucis ordinis Danebrog, quum aurea tum argenta ornatus, etc. = Fortegnelse over Stiftsprovst og Confessionarius, Dr. theol. Just Henrik Paulli’s efterladte Bogsamling, der 4

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

291

maintained his close connection with mrs. Heiberg. it was also paulli who spoke at the funeral of Heiberg’s mother, the writer thomasine gyllembourg (1773–1856).8 already during his time as a university student, he was, through martensen, introduced to the new direction in German theology, which was especially influenced by Hegel’s philosophy. paulli closely followed martensen’s development and was, for example, his constant discussion partner, while the latter was working on his dogmatics.9 martensen describes their friendship both in his memoirs and in his speech at paulli’s funeral as a very close and intimate relation: He has been a friend to me in the full meaning of the word. He had sympathy for the human in me, also for my weaknesses. He [became my spiritual adviser] in the deepest sense. i could tell him everything. He helped me to struggle against many dark and disheartened hours, gave me advice, and was a consolation and relief.10

in 1838 paulli got married, but less than a year later his wife died. in 1843 he married again, this time with mynster’s eldest daughter, maria elisabeth mynster (1822– 1909). This position as Mynster’s son-in-law made him on one specific occasion a kind of intermediary between Kierkegaard and mynster. alongside his work as pastor, where not least of all his efforts in pastoral care have been emphasized, paulli participated in several commissions and in charitable work of various kinds. in 1844 Copenhagen’s Clerical Conference appointed a commission whose task was to come up with a proposal for a new hymn book. paulli was a member of the commission along with, among others, martensen and grundtvig. the background for the commission’s work was a general wish to have a new hymn book as a replacement for the Evangelisk-christelig Psalmebog from 1798. in several places Kierkegaard ironizes over and polemicizes against “the [hymn] book affair,” which he found unnecessary and an artificial sign that there was movement in the Church.11 paulli was very interested in practical theology. His Habilitation thesis, which he defended in 1851, had as its theme the pastoral theology of niels Hemmingsen (1513– 1600), one of the most skilled of the danish theologians from the reformation. Kierkegaard owned this book.12 paulli was not a profoundly productive author. However, one book should be mentioned in this connection, namely Christian Prayers, which

bortsælges ved offentlig Auction i Lille Fiolstræde Nr. 8, d. 7. Marts 1866, Kl. 10 (Copenhagen: Bianco lunos Bogtrykkeri 1866, p. 105) paulli owned gozzi’s italienske Maske-Comoedier. Fra det Italienske ved S. Meisling, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1825. 8 Funeral speech: “over Fru gyllembourg, den 9de Juli 1856,” in J.H. paulli, Taler i Kirken og ved særegne Leiligheder, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1866, pp. 241–3. 9 Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849. 10 martensen, Af mit Levnet, vol. 2, pp. 19–20. Cf. paulli, “over Fru gyllembourg, den 9de Juli 1856,” , pp. 430–1. 11 SKS 20, 290, nB4:6 / JP 5, 6097. Pap. vii–1 B 195. 12 J. H. paulli, Dr. Niels Hemmingsens Pastoraltheologie. Et Bidrag til den practiske Theologies Historie. Udgivet for Doctorgraden i Theologien, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 715).

292

Søren Jensen

was printed in several editions.13 in 1854 paulli was appointed as instructor at the pastoral seminary, and here he taught homiletics and pastoral theology.14 Mynster had himself published the first three volumes of his Blandede Skrivter and had plans to publish a second section. However, his death prevented him from doing so, and the work of publishing the last three volumes was passed on to paulli.15 when the position of dean of the diocese of zealand became free, paulli was the natural person to receive it, and for the next several years he was one of the closest collaborators with his good friend, martensen. as is well known, martensen followed mynster to the bishop’s chair in 1854. paulli was a very conscientious and devoted pastor, and it is probable that the work took such a toll on his health that it ultimately cost him his life. paulli died in 1865, only 56 years of age.16 II. Paulli and Kierkegaard it might very well have been at the Heibergs that Kierkegaard at the beginning of the 1830s became more closely acquainted with paulli.17 in any case, they both belonged to the group of people who frequented the Heiberg home. In the first years Paulli was also one of the preachers whom Kierkegaard liked to hear. several places in his journals give evidence that he was at the services in the Castle Church and heard him preach.18 that he must have appreciated paulli’s preaching is clear from the fact that he recommended to regine to go to paulli’s church services even when he was catechist at the Church of the Holy spirit.19 However, one can read from the journal 13 Christelige Bønner, collected by J.H. paulli, Copenhagen: Foreningen til christelige opbyggelselsesskrifters udbredelse i Folket 1845. 14 paulli left behind “a large number of entries, studies and drafts on homiletics, lithurgy, practical theology, etc.” of these his “indledningsforelæsning til Homilitiken” was published in Theologisk Tidskrift, Copenhagen: Forlagsbureauet 1872, pp. 415–27. see also paulli’s remarks about the lectures on the “public church service in its historical development,’ which he gave at the pastoral seminar in “nogle Bemærkninger ved den i danske Kirketidende nr. 29 fremsatte opfordring til det theologiske Facultet,” Dansk Kirketidende, nos. 30–31, 1869, columns 474–7. 15 Jakob peter mynster, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852–53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57] (ASKB 358–363). see paulli’s foreword in vol. 6, pp. i–vi. 16 “We could certainly say that this, his [serving], self-sacrificing love for people, which in so many ways sought him out and called him to itself, this, his great willingness to bear the burdens of others, has been an a contributing cause to his early death.” martensen, Leilighedstaler. Samlede og ordnede af Forfatteren, p. 425. 17 see Heiberg, Et Liv gjenoplevet i Erindringen, vol. 4, p. 95. 18 SKS 24, 132, nB22:53 / JP 2, 1887. SKS 24, 144, nB22:79 / JP 4, 3950. SKS 24, 370, nB24:81 / JP 3, 3522. SKS 24, 522, nB25:109 / JP 6, 6800. 19 according to Hanne mourier’s account of the conversation with Regine Olsen (1822– 1904) in Hjalmar Helweg, Søren Kierkegaard. En psykiatrisk-psykologisk Studie, Copenhagen: H. Hagerup 1933, p. 388.

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

293

entries that Kierkegaard became more and more critical of paulli’s preaching. the criticism comes out when the status that a concept receives in Kierkegaard is not in harmony with other people’s use of the concept, for example, the concept “imitation”: we are not to talk about discipleship and imitation the way paulli talked the last time i heard him (26 sunday after trinity, the gospel): He said: we have now followed Christ through the succession of holy days during the past year. this is nonsense, a careless association of ideas with the words “to follow after,” an attempt merely to get them said, as if everything were “all right” then, “and we cannot accuse him of leaving out imitation.”20

this entry is from 1850, and on the day after Christmas of the same year Kierkegaard again went to the Castle Church, where he catches paulli undertaking “a new [turn]”: today...he [paulli] preached about stephen. He was well aware that this was not something to be “admired.” it should be presented for imitation or for humbling. But paulli did not make this turn. no, we should not admire it but “give god the glory.” this may indeed be said, but the pharisees said the very same so they would not receive the impression that Christ had healed the man born blind.21

Kierkegaard’s understanding of martyrdom, which is expressed in the last year of his life, clearly shines through already in this entry. once in 1853 he writes in his journal under the heading: “nicodemus and me”: in time the kind of preaching which can be heard in an orderly manner has become more and more intolerable to me. it seems to me that the entire church service is a grand attempt in the direction of making a fool of god, even if one is not aware of this. But then in a Christian manner, one speaks backwards. aesthetically this can be very beautiful. the speech can be well memorized (for example as paulli does) well given, etc., but in almost everything one notices indirectly that the speaker is not living in what is Christian, and so he speaks backwards, and thus with his speech does not help other people to do so. Constantly, Christianly, galimathias or the blinding of the eyes. Can one defend participating in this kind of thing? i have really considered stopping going to church and just reading at home in a stricter edifying work on sunday morning and singing a few hymns.22

apart from revealing that Kierkegaard could sing, this entry shows how far he had come in his developing a critical distance to the church. paulli’s preaching no longer satisfied him since it presented the message “backwards,” and therefore he preferred to remain at home and stay away from the sunday service. likewise, this entry foreshadows the attack on the Church of his last year, which was not a spontaneous rebellion of a madman, but an attack, which in every way was prepared by the development that Kierkegaard’s thought had been through. 20 21 22

SKS 24, 132, nB22:53 / JP 2, 1887. SKS 24, 144, nB22:79 / JP 4, 3950. (Translation slightly modified.) SKS 25, 244, nB28:37.

294

Søren Jensen

Kierkegaard had become cand. theol. in 1840, but only in 1844 did he give his probation sermon.23 on this occasion, professor C.e. scharling (1803–77) and paulli were his examiners.24 Kierkegaard managed the task well and earned the grade of laudabilis. paulli kept the manuscript of the probation sermon, and it was in his estate when there was a book auction in 1866 after his death.25 with the exception of the anonymous work Two Ethical-Religious Essays (1849) and the two short pamphlets This Must Be Said; So Let It Be Said and What Christ Judges of Official Christianity, both from 1855, paulli owned all of Kierkegaard’s works. one could imagine that Kierkegaard had given paulli at least some of his books, but as far as we know there exist no presentation copies for him. it is therefore more likely that paulli bought Kierkegaard’s books as they appeared, but he might also have inherited some of them from his father-in-law.26 III. practice in Christianity (1850) as noted, paulli was one of the people whom Kierkegaard went on walks with or stopped on the street when he was himself out walking. this is what happened on october 21, 1850. on september 27 Practice in Christianity had appeared, written by the new pseudonymous author, anti-Climacus, who not merely claimed to know what Christianity is, but who also called himself a Christian. Kierkegaard had the work sent to mynster, as he was accustomed to do with his books.27 Kierkegaard regarded the elucidation of Christianity which he represented as being the exact opposite of mynster’s.28 mynster had once used the expression that he and Kierkegaard “were complementary parts to each other.”29 with this mynster presumably wanted to say that there was an opposition in their conceptions of Christianity, but yet both sides were in their own way justified. Kierkegaard repeatedly returns to this remark, which was presumably meant as a friendly gesture from mynster’s side. For Kierkegaard, the opposition consisted in what he called mynster’s “worldliness,” namely, that he as a public servant was bound to an institution and had cemented Christianity in forms, and definitions, and in social behavior. To a certain degree, it is impossible to avoid the fact that Kierkegaard was aware of, Kierkegaard, “demis-prædiken holdt i trinitatis Kirke d. 24. Febr. 1844,” Pap. iv C 1 / JP 4, 3916. 24 see the preface to Pap. iv, p. Xiv and “Bevis for homiletisk prøve,” in B&A, vol. 1, pp. 19–20. / LD, p. 26, document Xviii. 25 Fortegnelse over Stiftsprovst og Confessionarius, Dr. theol. Just Henrik Paulli’s efterladte Bogsamling, der bortsælges ved offentlig Auction i Lille Fiolstræde Nr. 8, d. 7. Marts 1866, Kl. 10, Copenhagen: Bianco lunos Bogtrykkeri 1866, p. 58. Cf. niels thulstrup’s commentary in B&A, vol. 2, p. 12. 26 Fortegnelse over Stiftsprovst og Confessionarius, Dr. theol. Just Henrik Paulli’s efterladte Bogsamling, p. 24; p. 35, pp. 58–9, pp. 81–2; p. 99 and p. 110. 27 Kierkegaard and mynster exchanged books. see Pap. Xi–2 a 419. 28 see, for example, Pap. X–6 B 220. 29 SKS 20, 222, nB2:210 / JP 6, 6058. 23

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

295

and therefore accepted for a very long period of time, mynster’s position, as a “complementary part” to his own. But he was hardly ever in doubt about the fact that his own view represented “a more authentic conception of Christianity than does mynster,” as he says in 1852.30 Kierkegaard saw a contemporary danger that—to use a modern expression— politics would go over into Christianity. it was his goal to the widest possible extent to release Christianity from the political ties which people from different sides wanted to use to bind it, and that one therefore should admit that “the established order,” that the Church, that Christendom, is not “in the stricter sense Christianity.”31 the established order would, in his view, be much stronger and more authentic. But this was not mynster’s tactic. He wanted “to maintain the appearance”; thus, he wanted to defend the established order by outwardly preserving the façade and asserting the Church’s position and right to Christianity. “mynster does not have more faith in the strength of the truth than my boots; he thinks complacently of his own cleverness—and of the appearance,”32 Kierkegaard writes. in the same place in his journals he mentions that he has spoken with paulli and martensen, and with rasmus nielsen (1809–84) about these problems and had asserted to each of them that “in two years the established order will thank me for the book.” this was in 1851.33 in relation to “the established order,” Kierkegaard thus stubbornly claims that the book is a defense and not an attack. However, it required that one had understood and consented to give the admission that Kierkegaard demanded in order to become aware of this. it is obvious that mynster (and paulli) felt attacked. on the other side, one must acknowledge that Kierkegaard is right when he claims that he was being conservative and not revolutionary.34 there had to come a reaction from mynster, either an admission or an attack: Either mynster has to rise up in all power—perhaps crush me: well, then the true state of affairs would be revealed. or no one will be the complete victor: well, everything was done on my side so that no irregularities would be concealed. Or perhaps mynster will have the spiritual-intellectual freedom to say: this is the truth; i rejoice in the very thought of it.35

the conversation that Kierkegaard had with paulli on october 21, 1850, could have led to mynster having answered this question. paulli told Kierkegaard that mynster was angry with him because of Practice in Christianity. mynster had said: “ ‘the book has made me furious; it is playing a profane game with holy things.’ and when paulli obligingly asked him if he should report that to me since he probably would be talking with me, mynster answered: ‘yes, and he no doubt will come to see me SKS 24, 500, nB25:84 / JP 6, 6795. “the established order-and i.” SKS 24, 392,.nB24:114. 32 SKS 24, 392–3, nB24:114. 33 SKS 24, 393, nB24:114. Cf. SKS 24, 94, nB21:153 / JP 6, 6699. 34 see, for example, SKS 24, 69, nB21:113 / JP 6, 6690. SKS 24, 87–8, nB21:141. SKS 24, 94, nB21:153 / JP 6, 6699. 35 SKS 24, 400, nB24:125 / JP 6, 6778. 30 31

296

Søren Jensen

sometime and i will tell him myself.’ ”36 the result was that Kierkegaard went to see mynster on the very next day. He began the conversation by saying, “pastor paulli told me yesterday that you intend as soon as you see me to reprimand me for my latest book.”37 this is not what mynster intended, but Kierkegaard had insisted and asked whether the book had vexed him. to this he answered: “well, i do believe that it will not prove useful.”38 Kierkegaard was satisfied with this answer: “it was friendly and personal.”39 In the sixth discourse in the final section of the book, Kierkegaard criticizes contemporary sermons for their “observations.” as such, it is not a mistake to observe something, in so far as one observes it closely, but in another sense one can easily come to create a distance to that which one makes the object of the observation. if it is about the Christian message, this is fatal, anti-Climacus claims. only by oneself being the object of the message does one have a chance to be affected by it: in other words, by observing i go into the object (i become objective) but i leave myself or go away from myself (i cease to be subjective). in this manner, by means of its favorite way of observing what is the essentially Christian, which is just by “observation” and “observations,” the sermon presentation has abolished what Christianly is decisive in the sermon presentation—the personal: this You and I, the speaker and the one being spoken to; this, that the one who is speaking is himself personally in motion, a striver, and likewise the one spoken to, whom he therefore stirs up, encourages, admonishes, and warns, but all with respect to a striving, a life; this, that the speaker will continually not go away from himself but come back to himself and will help the listener, not to go away from himself but to come back to himself. in our day, the sermon presentation has itself first totally disregarded, and subsequently has contributed to its being totally forgotten, that the Christian truth cannot really be the object of “observations.”40

one of the most widely read edifying books and most popular dogmatics of the age was mynster’s Observations on Christian Dogmatics, which Kierkegaard owned but did not have a particularly high opinion of.41 the use of the word “observation” in the discourse therefore makes it obvious that one should regard this section as a criticism of mynster. this is precisely what mynster did. in the course of the conversation, he took up the issue and said, “that wherever one went or turned, there had to be observations.”42 Kierkegaard did not comment on this further. otherwise, the two spoke together as they were accustomed to do. Kierkegaard was happy about this since in a way it had pained him to pose this dilemma. “i considered it my duty to

SKS 24, 72, nB21:121 / JP 6, 6691. ibid. 38 SKS 24, 73, nB21:121 / JP 6, 6691. 39 ibid. 40 SKS 12, 228, / PC, 233–4. 41 Jakob peter mynster, Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1833. Kierkegaard owned the second edition from 1837 (ASKB 254–255), which he only bought in 1844. in the places in the journals where he refers to the Betragtninger, he is critical. 42 SKS 24, 73, nB21:121 / JP 6, 6691. 36 37

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

297

maintain the cause in such a manner that i might let the established order determine to what extent it would force me to go farther, by taking steps against me.”43 moreover, it is not uninteresting that the [discourse] itself began in this way: in Christendom, sermons, lectures, and speeches are heard often enough about what is required of an imitator of Christ, about the implications of being an imitator of Christ, what it means to follow Christ, etc. what is heard is generally very correct and true; only by listening more closely does one discover a deeply hidden un-Christian, basic confusion and dubiousness. the Christian sermon today has become mainly “observations.”44

even if Kierkegaard did not have paulli in mind when he wrote these lines, the criticism is in agreement with that from the journals, where he criticizes paulli for a careless use of the concept of imitation. still in June of 1852 he associates mynster and paulli with “imitation”: given mynster’s and paulli’s kind of preaching, preaching could continue by the same and to the same for 170,000 years, if possible, and they would not come one single step farther in the Christian life; on the contrary, it would retrogress for them. it is one thing to shut a door; it is something quite different to jam the lock. But this kind of preaching jams the lock of “imitation.”45

in any case, both mynster and paulli could feel that they were attacked by the book’s criticism. However, an admission, like the one that Kierkegaard insisted on and which was discussed in the fifth discourse in the third section of Practice in Christianity,46 was not forthcoming. Kierkegaard overestimated the political reaction that his works, for example, Christian Discourses or Practice in Christianity, would receive.47 mynster regarded Kierkegaard as an exception, a gifted eccentric, who, due to the favorable circumstances of his private finances could keep his activity as an author going. It is highly doubtful that he judged Kierkegaard and the significance of the authorship as brilliant as Kierkegaard himself did. the opposition between the two can to a large extent be found in the measuring rod which they applied to Kierkegaard’s works. Kierkegaard lived with mynster’s silence but discussed things with himself in his journal. He asked himself whether mynster remained silent because he believed that he (sc. Kierkegaard) was too weak to attack the established order. “i am not too weak to attack, from a Christian point of view, mynster’s management of the Church. and i should be able to do it such that i could get both martensen and paulli to tip over to my side.”48 thus he wrote in 1851, and he must thus have received the impression ibid. SKS 12, 227 / PC, 233. 45 SKS 25, 16, nB26:8 / JP 6, 6802. 46 SKS 12, 221–2 / PC, 227. 47 For example, he writes about Practice in Christianity that in the weeks prior to his visit to mynster, the authorities had not reacted to the book: “...from the establishment side not the slightest thing had been done or the slightest move made toward any government measure” SKS 24, 72, nB21:121.a / JP 6, 6692. 48 SKS 24, 406, nB24:130. 43 44

298

Søren Jensen

from his conversations with martensen and paulli that they understood to a certain degree his concerns. However, Kierkegaard was ultimately forced “to go farther.” IV. The Attack on the Church (1854–55) the occasion only came after mynster’s death on January 30, 1854. martensen’s sermon a week later, where he placed mynster in the series of “truth-witnesses that like a holy chain stretches through the ages from the days of the apostles to our own day,” introduced the “conflict about the truth-witnesses,” which led to the actual attack on the Church and The Moment’s attack on Christendom and the pastors.49 The fact that the conflict in the first round felt like a personal attack on the deceased bishop naturally touched mynster’s family. in a letter to Bishop Brammer from February 17, 1855 paulli writes: we have had a quite unpleasant time with søren Kierkegaard’s attack on mynster. my mother-in-law has been deeply offended. i knew that she would be, and for this reason we hid the whole thing from her at Christmas in order not to disturb the holidays for her. it is, however, shameful to use Christianity as Kierkegaard has done, to make a fuss with. there is something demonic in his vanity. there are people who think that he is insane, but they only know him a little. everything with him is calculated. what evil disposition did he not reveal when he imposed himself on martensen? i have noted a long time age from his conversation—earlier we used to take walks together—that he thought about himself that he was the man who would help out Christianity among us [sc. in denmark], and i honestly said to him my opinion about what was warped and dangerous in his writings. But i did not, however, imagine that he was capable of such behavior. after his last articles, i neither saw him nor spoke with him. i am longing to tell him what i now think of him.50

in the letter paulli distances himself from the view that Kierkegaard had become mad, but not in order to make room for or to offer the admission that Kierkegaard sought. when he emphasizes that everything is calculated with Kierkegaard, then this is to say that he is malicious. He is offended that Kierkegaard uses Christianity “to make a fuss.” this sounds like an echo of mynster’s words: “playing a profane game with holy things.” we do not know if paulli ever met Kierkegaard again and told him his opinion. after Kierkegaard’s death in november 1855, paulli writes again to Brammer: søren Kierkegaard died on sunday evening. He gradually lost his energy and was fully conscious. He did not want to see anyone, not even his brother, who was very insulted by this. His two nephews, who are doctors, and the pastor Boesen from Horsens, a friend from his childhood and youth, who has been greatly distressed by his behavior, but yet would see him before he died, were the only ones who came in to him at the end. He is Hans lassen martensen, “prædiken i Christiansborg slotskirke paa femte søndag efter Hellig-tre-Kongersdag den 5te Februar 1854,” in his Leilighedstaler, pp. 17–31; p. 20 / M, supplement, p. 359. 50 on February 17, 1855. see Kok (ed.), “nogle Breve til Bishop g.p. Brammer,” p. 486. 49

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

299

supposed to have had some softness in the brain; one wonders if this was to blame for his writings or his writings were to blame for it? on his deathbed he several times expressed his satisfaction with what he had done and expected that he would die.51

what paulli says about Kierkegaard’s illness is interesting. in better society there was a general consensus that Kierkegaard was mentally ill. Here paulli connects the illness to the authorship, without deciding which one came first. If one should say something positive about this otherwise perfidious remark, then it is that Paulli had a sense for the fact that Kierkegaard’s attack had roots much further back in the authorship and that it was not due to a whim or a fancy. V. Paulli’s Death as noted, paulli was conscientious and industrious. during the cholera epidemic in 1853 he remained in Copenhagen. in a letter to Brammer he tells him that he on “one day had cast earth on 60 bodies.”52 likewise, during the war in 1864, he did not spare himself but worked tirelessly in the camp hospitals in Copenhagen. in the same year he was named royal Confessor, but in the following year, 1865, he died. there was an epilogue to his death, which recalled that of his father-in-law. a lay preacher by the name of mogens abraham sommer (1829–1901), who had been a schoolteacher in Haderslev, was strongly influenced by Kierkegaard during the attack on the Church and remained so for the rest of his days.53 in his polemic he was far coarser and far less elegant than his model, and was thrown in jail several times for libel. sommer had by chance seen the funeral procession, which gave him the idea of writing A Sad Memory of Dean Paulli’s Funeral on the 17th of July 1865.54 He did not know paulli and had never heard him preach, but he apparently had such a great desire to imitate Kierkegaard that he could not help but write a lampoon about him. on the previous sunday, sommer had preached for a group at nørrefælled on the simile of the rich man and lazarus, and he came to think of this when he “saw this great magnificence” at Paulli’s funeral. He had read the obituary, which he ironically refers to. “i thought when i read it that there has never been a lack of hypocrites, toadies and deceivers...who artfully know how to fade, veil and hide the truth, and so it is certain that a successor will be found.”55 strangely enough, sommer does not reuse Kierkegaard’s formulation from the article in Fædrelandet which initiated the attack on the Church,56 and recalls that martensen could make himself a candidate for the vacant position as Confessor. on november 12, 1855. see ibid., p. 488. on august 27, 1853. see ibid., p. 485. 53 on sommer and his activity, see emil larsen, Urovækkeren Mogens Abraham Sommer med særligt henblik på haderslevtiden, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1963. 54 m.a. sommer, En bedrøvelig Ihukommelse om Provst Paulli’s Jordefærd den 17de Juli 1865. Samt Dommen som faldt i denne Sag, Copenhagen 1865, p. 9. 55 ibid. 56 Kierkegaard, “var Bishop mynster et ‘sandhedsvidne,’et af ‘de rette sandhedsvidner’— er dette sandhed?” SV1 Xiv, 5 / M, 3. 51 52

300

Søren Jensen

Between the first and the second edition of this short work, Martensen was appointed to the position of Confessor. sommer was greatly amused by this: “now since that time a successor has really been found. Just think, His excellence Bishop H.l. martensen dr. theol. Court preacher C.d.m. has become royal Confessor Ha! Ha! Ha! Can one help laughing, he has also become Bishop of the order. Ha! Ha! Ha!”57 sommer read that paulli had been pastor for three kings. it must have demanded “great virtuosity...to ingratiate himself with all of them”; he would not have been able “to hide the truth, for example, from King Frederik the seventh...but it is true, i have not studied at the university, and am not ordained. that changes everything,”58 he ironically adds. He refers directly to Kierkegaard’s attack on martensen’s sermon on mynster: He chaffed Bishop martensen because the latter came out with that drivel that Bishop mynster was a truth-witness....martensen prostituted himself one time after the next and gave striking proofs of his unheard of stupidity. the greatest stupidity that he knew was that he did not immediately recant his words and confess that he had spoken thoughtlessly and mindlessly, but he did not want to do so, and therefore the stupidity still [sticks to] him.59

with respect to paulli, he had unfolded his “acting talent” and his “artist talent” and played “his role well, right to the end.” He now receives his reward for this in the form of a magnificent funeral! This is the reward for having practiced dissemblance himself his entire life. “He went about so simply and quietly, kept silent, wrote little and took care to give gifts so that a party could praise him as a good man. How bravely did he not act, when the storm arose at his father-in-law’s grave.”60 paulli had not got involved in the debate then, which sommer thinks was wise of him, and something for which he was also rewarded. sommer tries, like a second Kierkegaard, to formulate the impossibility of making Christianity similar to an institution stamped with worldliness, as Paulli had done. In him one could not find that “which consoles against the terrors of eternity,”61 since honesty was lacking. to the extent that there is theology in sommer’s lampoon, it can under no circumstances be seen as supplementing that of martensen or paulli. sommer only presents an opposition or criticism. in his speech at the funeral martensen says that paulli “has preached the gospel pure and simple,” that he “has served well in the congregation since he has worked until the end in the word and the doctrine,” and he mentions that paulli “has prepared for himself a good path...to his own inward perfection.”62 However, he did not call him a truth-witness, but formulations such as these reveal that martensen for his

ibid. “C.d.m.” is an abbreviation for the royal orders “Commandør” and “dannebrogsmand.” 58 sommer, En bedrøvelig Ihukommelse om Provst Paulli’s Jordefærd, p. 10. 59 ibid. 60 ibid., pp. 12–13. 61 ibid., p. 13. 62 martensen, Leilighedstaler, p. 422; p. 424; p. 425. 57

Just H.V. Paulli: Mynster’s Son-in-Law

301

part was not theologically tempted by the issue which was Kierkegaard’s, and which sommer in his way attempts to formulate and imitate. sommer might have had in mind Kierkegaard’s section “take an emetic” from The Moment no. 1, which again is about martensen’s sermon for mynster, since sommer closes by recommending martensen’s “Funeral sermon for Dean Paulli”: if one should suffer from nausea, one needs only to read it, and “then one has a good emetic.”63 sommer was sued for this work, but he was found not guilty. Translated by Jon Stewart

63

sommer, En bedrøvelig Ihukommelse om Provst Paulli’s Jordefærd, p. 14.

Bibliography I. Paulli’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Christelige Bønner, collected by J.H. paulli, 2nd printing, Copenhagen: Foreningen til christelige opbyggelsesskrifters udbredelse i Folket 1848 (ASKB 279). Dr. Niels Hemmingsens Pastoraltheologie. Et Bidrag til den practiske Theologies Historie. Udgivet for Doctorgraden i Theologien, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851 (ASKB 715). II. Works that Refer to Paulli in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library none. III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Paulli none.

andreas gottlob rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s idea of an “orthodox” theologian søren Jensen

I. Rudelbach’s Life and Work together with Jacob Christian lindberg (1797–1857) and n.F.s. grundtvig (1783– 1872), andreas gottlob rudelbach (1792–1862) is the third of the great theological personalities from the revivalist time and the struggle against rationalism, the socalled “kirkekamp” (1825–32). after the publication of The Church’s Reply (1825)1 and the subsequent court case, grundtvig stepped into the background, and lindberg and in part rudelbach came to lead the attack. But in contrast to lindberg, who developed in a grundtvigian direction and formulated the ecclesiastical standpoint based on grundtvig’s “matchless discovery,” rudelbach represented to a greater extent than the other two a strong lutheran confessionalism. rudelbach’s father came from sachsen, and his mother was from sweden. His father, Johann Heinrich gottlob rudelbach (1748–1821), who had been a farmer, but became a journeyman tailor, came to Copenhagen in 1787. He married Berthe Cathrine Ørstrøm (1753–1825), who was a servant girl. the marriage produced eight children: four sons, of which rudelbach was the only one to survive, and four daughters. rudelbach was born in Copenhagen on september 29, 1792 and was baptized in peter’s Church, the german church which his family belonged to.2 His father, nicolai Frederik severin grundtvig, Kirkens Gienmæle, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825. 2 we are still lacking a thorough biography of rudelbach with a critical account of his theological efforts and development. the most important publications are i.r. stochholm’s series of articles on rudelbach, but the presentation only reaches the year 1829, “til minde om Consistorialraad, dr. phil. & theol. andreas gottlob rudelbach,” Evangelisk Ugeskrift, no. 3, 1863, pp. 32–54; nos. 4–5, 1863, pp. 57–80; no. 8, 1863, pp. 121–34; and no. 12, 1863, pp. 185–92. i.r. stochholm also published a complete but much shorter biography, “andreas gottlob rudelbach,” Kirkekalender for Norge, vol. 2, 1875 (Christiania), pp. 36– 118, which was also published separately as an off-print: i.r. stochholm, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, Christiania: det steenske Bogtrykkeri 1875, pp. 1–86. see also C.r. Kaiser, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach ein Zeuge der lutherischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, leipzig: Justus naumann 1892; Frederik nielsen, “andreas gottlob rudelbach,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, tillige omfattende Norge for Tidsrummet 1537–1814, vols. 1–19, ed. by C.F. Bricka, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1887–1905, vol. 14, pp. 408–12; Carl weltzer, “andreas gottlob 1

304

Søren Jensen

wanting to give his children an impression of his german background, told them of his land of birth and spoke german with them at home. in this way rudelbach became familiar with the german language from the earliest childhood, and at the same time his father instilled in the child a desire to learn more about the foreign country. Rudelbach “counted it to be the luck of his life that he was filled with longing and desire so early.”3 the boy attended saint peter’s Church school, and at age 13, in 1805, he entered the lowest class in the metropolitan school. He very much enjoyed going to school, and languages and history were his favorite subjects; on his own he also went through the belles-lettres and poetry, which he wrote short commentaries to. in a single year he went through the two lowest classes in the school. early on he received private instruction in languages, in French and english, which he would later benefit from. His marked lack for practical things forced his parents to shelve plans for rudelbach becoming a tailor like his father, and in accordance with his wishes he finally came to pursue scholarship. In 1806 he was confirmed and then in 1807 came the bombardment of Copenhagen by the english. the boy frequented the english camp because here he had the opportunity to hear and speak english. during the bombardment, he was injured by being struck on the head by a roof tile; he only regained consciousness after several months. in spite of the war, the school continued, and in 1810 rudelbach was enrolled in the university and passed the atrium examination. He attended courses in philosophy and the classical languages, and generally expanded his horizon in all directions with the exception of the natural sciences. in 1811 he took the so-called second examination and received a stipendium, so that he could move into the college residence regensen. Here he had as his roommate the later professor of philosophy— Kierkegaard’s teacher—poul martin møller (1794–1838). during this heyday of romanticism, there was an engaged student life, where they received many different impressions and actively participated in debates and discussions. when rudelbach in 1811 began his studies, he chose theology. However, he was repelled by the curriculum’s mechanical organization and neglected the lectures in this field in favor of other disciplines. He read and studied in a scattered manner and there was a certain degree of randomness in his studies. this can be recognized in the scattered character that his knowledge had. rudelbach has often been characterized

rudelbach,” in Dansk biografisk Leksikon, vols. 1–27, ed. by povl engelstoft, Copenhagen: J.H. schultz Forlag 1933–44, vol. 20 (1941), pp. 294–8; wolfdietrich Kloeden, “andreas gottlob rudelbach,” in Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 2nd unchanged ed., nordhausen: verlag traugott Bautz 1990–2007, vol. 8 (1994), columns 919–23. in addition, there is rudelbach’s autobiography, written in connection with his being awarded a honorary doctorate from the university in erlangen, Vitam suam hucusque actam brevi narratione summe venerabili theologorum Academiae Fridericianae Erlangensis ordini oblata, exposuit Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, leipzig: Bernhard tauchnitz Jun. 1842. the book ends with a bibliography. 3 stochholm, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, p. 5.

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

305

as a learned theologian, which is in no way incorrect, but it is perhaps more precise to say simply that he was very knowledgeable.4 also as a university student, he was attracted to the study of languages and history, just as he continued to cultivate his interest in literature: he read seminal works on poetry, rhetoric, and aesthetics, and attended the lectures of adam oehlenschläger (1779–1850) on Johannes ewald (1743–1813) and Friedrich schiller (1759–1805). together with some fellow students, among others, poul martin møller, rudelbach in 1812 founded a society, the lyceum, which had as its goal to practice eloquence and debate in latin. one student had as his task to write theses, and the others would then attack and criticize them. in practice rudelbach also used his abilities in this direction since he was a capable debater or “opponent” at the public defenses of dissertations at the university. He was an opponent at, among others, Jakob peter mynster’s (1775–1854) defense in 1813, and Johan ludvig Heiberg’s (1791–1860) in 1817. In the literary fight between Oehlenschläger and Jens Baggesen (1764–1826)— the so-called “controversy of the twelve”—rudelbach participated along with 11 other students on the side of Oehlenschläger. It was in the same conflict that both lindberg and grundtvig participated, however, not on the side of oehlenschläger but rather that of Baggesen.5 it was during these years that rudelbach developed an interest in books and became an impassioned book collector. He went to book auctions when he could manage it, and laid the groundwork for a very large private book collection.6 rudelbach began to teach german and later also history and geography. in 1817 he entered an essay competition with a literary theme about the poetic nature of classical greek drinking songs, for which he received the gold medal. that he did not have any real plan for his studies has to some degree to do with the bad impression that he had initially received of the instructors in theology. He sought a living connection in theology, and he did not find this among the instructors at the theological Faculty. in agreement with the dominant theological view, the study of the old testament was at this time quite neglected. one regarded it as more or less meaningless mythology. But rudelbach dedicated himself to studying the old testament and learned Hebrew from a Jewish scholar. on the whole, he undertook an intensive study of the Bible during these years and received the view of an organic harmony Cf. SKS 26, 262–3, nB33:20 / JP 4, 3869 from 1854: “ridiculous scholarship. peer degn says...‘and when it is bound in leather it is called Aurora and is declined like mensa.’ this ‘and is declined like mensa’ is scholarship—and completely out of place, merely to betray learned knowledge. and yet if one took a pencil and went through the books of even so competent a man as dr. rudelbach, how persistently one would encounter that kind of scholarship: and is declined just like mensa.” 5 Kaj Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg. Studier over den grundtvigske bevægelses første kamp, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1958, p. 32. 6 at his death in 1862 rudelbach had an impressive book collection, which was sold at auction the following year. the auction catalogue lists more than 22,000 items. see Bibliotheca Rudelbachiana sive catalogus librorum quos collegit et reliquit Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, leipzig: reclam 1863. 4

306

Søren Jensen

between the old and the new testament, which was not common at the university at the time due to the neglect of the study of the old testament.7 in 1820 rudelbach took his qualifying examination and received the distinction summa cum laude. He zealously continued his studies and worked on obtaining an appointment at the university. He wrote a doctoral thesis on the principles of ethics and the relation between greek and Christian ethics, which he defended in august of 1822 and for which he became dr. phil.8 among the many critics at the oral defense was Henrik nicolai Clausen (1793–1877), who became professor that same year. Clausen was rudelbach’s friend from his school days, and they had the year previous carried out a theological debate about the concept of miracles, in which rudelbach had declared himself to be orthodox vis-à-vis Clausen’s mild rationalism, a debate in which Clausen appeared very arrogant.9 shortly before the defense of his Habilitation, rudelbach married elisabeth marie Bønsøe (1803–67). it was somewhat unusual and also risky to found a hearth without having any actual appointment, but rudelbach had reason to believe that in a short period of time he would be able to receive a position at the university. that is, he was awarded a travel stipend, in preparation for a future position as university instructor. the journey took him to germany, austria, switzerland, and France and lasted from 1823 to 1824. in addition to studying in libraries and archives, the most important benefit of the journey was that he found his theological position partly via his contact with revivalist circles and partly with his meeting with other confessions. He became strongly confessional, an orthodox lutheran. He established contacts with leading ecclesiastical and theological personalities, and even though he in time developed into a very radical lutheran theologian, he always considered the confessional discussion of the various Christian Churches.10 after his return home rudelbach attached himself to a circle of younger theologians who were in opposition to the dominant theology, among others, lindberg and lic. theol. J.a.l. Holm (1799–1861). He had made the acquaintance of the latter on his journey. this group appealed to the somewhat older grundtvig for his support in the publication of a theological monthly, the Theologisk Maanedsskrift, of which rudelbach was to be the actual editor.11 Here the group had an organ for the criticism on rudelbach’s theological development during these years, see C.r. Kaiser, “rudelbachs Konfessionen über sein theologisches studium 1815–1820. zum gedächtnis seines Heimgangs am 3. märtz 1862,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1902, pp. 522–45. 8 andreas rudelbach, De ethices principiis hucusque vulgo traditis, disquisito historico-philosophica, Copenhagen: Hartv. Frid. popp. 1822. Kierkegaard owned a copy of the Habilitation (ASKB 750). 9 Jørgen larsen, H.N. Clausen. Hans Liv og Gerning, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1945, pp. 117ff.; Baagø, Magister Jacob Christian Lindberg, pp. 65–6. 10 an account of the journey and its fruit is found in torben Krogh, “a.g. rudelbachs udenlandsrejse 1823–24,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 7, vol. 2, pp. 566–628. 11 Theologisk Maanedsskrift, ed. by n.F.s. grundtvig and a.g. rudelbach, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandling 1825–28, which appeared in 13 volumes until 1828 with rudelbach as the sole editor starting with the seventh volume. Kierkegaard owned the journal (ASKB 346–351). in a letter to Nicolai Faber (1789–1848) on december 6, 1825 grundtvig mentions that it is true that his name appears on “the title page as coeditor,” but he was 7

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

307

of rationalist theology, and rudelbach had a special opportunity to reformulate the old lutheran theology, which he advocated. in his articles and reviews rudelbach was at least as polemical as grundtvig, and thus the impression of him was cemented, among the professors and leading men of the church, as a theological reactionary or “orthodox,” as Kierkegaard always called him later. neither mynster nor Clausen escaped unscathed. when mynster published his sermon The Christian Wisdom,12 in which he marked his distance from grundtvig, not only grundtvig but also rudelbach responded.13 Further, the front towards Clausen was constantly drawn up sharply. rudelbach’s review of Clausen’s book on The Church Constitution of Catholicism and Protestantism stretched over several issues of the monthly journal and was at least as critical towards Clausen as grundtvig’s protest had been.14 as late as 1828 the two old schoolmates were in conflict.15 it must have been at around this time that rudelbach came into contact with the Kierkegaard family. the contact was probably made through søren Kierkegaard’s brother peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88), but it is not impossible that the acquaintance was made directly through the brothers’ father, michael pedersen Kierkegaard (1756–1838). that rudelbach came into their home is clear from søren Kierkegaard’s remark from the article about rudelbach from 1851, where he writes: “i became acquainted with this man in my father’s house and am convinced that he is genuinely well disposed toward me.”16 the old Kierkegaard continued to be interested in rudelbach, even after the latter had moved to germany, which is confirmed by, among other things, his correspondence with P.C. Kierkegaard.17

only a “simple co-worker,” see Kaj Baagø, “er kirkelig polemik nedbrydende? en discussion mellem grundtvig og nic. Faber i 1825,” Grundtvig-studier, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1957, p. 66. grundtvig writes something similar in the “postscript” with which the last volume of the Theologisk Maanedsskrift closes: “...i have, even if i am called co-editor of the MaanedsSkrift, never been anything other than dr. rudelbach’s constant co-worker, and i have not founded the Maaneds-Skrift, ...but...have not only approved its beginning but advised its continuation.” Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vol. 13, 1828, p. 200. 12 J.p. mynster, Den christelige Viisdom. Prædiken holden paa tyvende Søndag efter Trinitatis 1825, Copenhagen: gyldendal [1825]. also in Kirkelige Leiligheds-Taler, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1854, pp. 202–12. 13 see the preface to Aandeligt Feldtraab i Kirkens Trængsels Dage af J. da Costa. Et Sidestykke til Dr. J.P. Mynsters Prædiken om den christelige Viisdom, trans. and ed. by a.g. rudelbach, Copenhagen: tengnagel 1825. 14 it was Henrik nicolai Clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning, Lære og Ritus (Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1825), which grundtvig’s protest was a reaction to; Cf. larsen, H.N. Clausen. Hans Liv og Gerning, pp. 157ff. 15 see, for example, andreas gottlob rudelbach, Saul iblandt Propheterne. Et Stridsskrift imod Professor H.N. Clausen, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandling 1828. 16 SV1 Xiii, 437 / COR, 52. 17 rudelbach had two sisters in Copenhagen with whom he regularly corresponded, and from the correspondence one learns of the close relation that existed between rudelbach and the family at nytorv; see Carl weltzer, Peter og Søren Kierkegaard, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1936, pp. 28ff. see also valdemar ammundsen, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom. Hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling, Copenhagen: g.e.C. gad 1912, p. 25 note; p. 47. even in

308

Søren Jensen

as early as winter semester 1824–25 rudelbach had tried to give lectures at the theological Faculty, but a new ordinance stated that the Faculty could turn down those with doctoral degrees who did not have a doctoral degree in theology, and rudelbach had his degree in philosophy. the theological doctoral degree could only be awarded if one had been invited by the faculty to write a Habilitation as an honorary doctorate, and so there was no prospect of rudelbach becoming dr. theol. at the university of Copenhagen. therefore, he submitted a treatise to the united monarchy’s second university in Kiel. Here he received the promise that the treatise would be accepted, but the promise was taken back with the argument that rudelbach did not occupy “a respectable ecclesiastical position.”18 only in 1844 did he succeed in becoming dr. theol., when he received an honorary doctorate from the university in erlangen. even though Clausen did what he could to prevent rudelbach from lecturing on the Confessio Augustana, rudelbach received permission to give lectures at the philosophical Faculty in 1824–25.19 as noted, during these years rudelbach developed into a strict lutheran. grundtvig withdrew more or less from the church struggle and concentrated on the ecclesiastical significance of his discovery of the status of the Apostles’ Creed. grundtvig’s discovery got rudelbach to study the historical relation of the apostles’ Creed more closely, and one result of this was that he at this point distanced himself from grundtvig theologically, without there ever being a break; but the difference between them, which became more pronounced later, was thus already present at the end of the 1820s.20 rudelbach kept in contact with his relations abroad. From 1827 until the mid1830s he wrote frequently about the situation of the danish church in the Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung, which was edited by professor ernst wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802– 69); he further informed his german-speaking readers about nordic literature.21 in denmark it became more and more hopeless for rudelbach to make a career, and when through Hengstenberg the possibility opened up for a position as superintendent in glauchau, rudelbach seized the opportunity and moved in 1829 with his family to sachsen.22 it was unusual that a dane would be named to a high1860 rudelbach referred to m.p. Kierkegaard as søren Kierkegaard’s “unforgettable father.” Evangelisk Ugeskrift, nos. 4–5, 1869, p. 66. 18 thomas Hansen erslew, Almindeligt Forfatter-Lexicon for Kongeriget Danmark med tilhørende Bilande fra 1814 til 1840, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Forlagsforeningens Forlag 1843–53, vol. 2, p. 712. 19 see Bjørn Kornerup, “Fra H.n. Clausens yngre aar,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 6, vol. 6, pp. 102–13. this series of lectures resulted in the publication of Den rette uforandrede Augsburgske Troesbekjendelse med sammes, af Ph. Melanchthon forfattede, Apologie, trans. and ed. by a.g. rudelbach, Copenhagen: den wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825, which Kierkegaard owned (ASKB 386). 20 see n.F.s. grundtvig, “efter-skrift,” where grundtvig in several places draws attention to the theological difference between him and rudelbach, Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vol. 13, 1828, pp. 187–8. 21 see erslew, Almindeligt Forfatter-Lexicon, vol. 2, p. 717. 22 in april 1829 there was a farewell party for rudelbach, where he received a silver cup, with an engraving written by grundtvig, and for which Hans lassen martensen (1808–

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

309

ranking ecclesiastical office in another country, but, on the other hand, Rudelbach moved to the district that his father came from, and he was, generally speaking, so well informed about german matters that in itself it was no problem. the debate with the rationalists in denmark, by contrast, took its toll on his energies over the long run. together with the dismissed church historian, professor H.e.F. guericke (1803–78), rudelbach in 1840 founded the Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, for which he—even after returning to denmark—continued to act as equal co-editor until his death in 1862.23 rudelbach remained in glauchau until 1845. From the beginning he was also here attacked by the rationalists, but he was greatly appreciated by the old-fashioned Lutherans in the parish, who regarded him as their firm foundation.24 He participated actively in church conferences and meetings, and always argued for his lutheran position. throughout the years in glauchau, rudelbach kept in contact with denmark by means of correspondence and journeys. after 16 years in sachsen he had become tired. He had lost the desire to be an administrator and the conflicts led him to finally resign his position. rudelbach made no attempt to hide the fact that he was disappointed, but after his return home the disappointments did not become fewer.25 King Christian viii appreciated rudelbach, who had good reason to believe that after his time abroad he would be able to obtain a position either as bishop or as professor at the university, but he did not succeed at either of these.26 at the theological Faculty professor Clausen had not forgotten the opposition to rudelbach and the conflicts of the 1820s. When Rudelbach applied to give lectures, it was hardly possible for the Faculty to refuse him, but every precaution was taken against rudelbach to preventing him from using the lectures as occasion for obtaining a fixed appointment.27 84) and m.p. Kierkegaard, among others, contributed. see Frederik nygård, “unge danske teologer fra 1827–1829. (af Chr. sigfred leys papirer),” Danskeren. Tidsskrift for Land og By, vol. 5, 1891, pp. 232ff. on martensen’s close relation to rudelbach in his youth, see J. oskar andersen, “Biskop H.l. martensens ungdom,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 6, vol. 1, 1933–35, pp. 160–71. 23 rudelbach’s letters to guericke, which give a nice impression of the cooperative work, are published in “dr. a.g. rudelbach in Briefen an guericke,” Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, vol. 24, 1863, pp. 125–71; pp. 289–332; pp. 466–505; and pp. 645–94. the correspondence runs from 1838 until the year before rudelbach’s death. 24 stochholm, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, pp. 54ff.; Kaiser, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach ein Zeuge der lutherischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, pp. 22ff. 25 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Den Fremmedes Afskeed. Afskeeds-Prædiken ved Embedets nedlæggelse, 26. Søndag efter Trinitatis 1845, Copenhagen: n.C. ditlewsen 1845. 26 Bjørn Kornerup, “a.g. rudelbach og Christian viii,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 6, vol. 6, 1948–50, pp. 459–79. 27 Bjørn Kornerup, “Fra H.n. Clausens yngre aar,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 6, vol. 6, 1948–50, pp. 113–37. see also l. Koch, “udtalelser af det theologiske Fakultet om l. Helveg og a.g. rudelbach 1846–7,” Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, series 4, vol. 5, 1900, pp. 126–33.

310

Søren Jensen

after the death of the King in 1848 he gave up entirely his efforts in this direction and became a parish pastor in slagelse.28 From his return home until his death rudelbach participated actively in debates about theology and church politics through books and articles. thus his book On Civil Marriage (1851)29 must also be regarded as a contribution to the political debate. it is said that rudelbach did not appropriate grundtvig’s “matchless discovery” and so-called church theory. His books bear witness to this, and after 1845 his criticism of grundtvig and his “party” became more and more outspoken.30 one should keep in mind this difference between grundtvig and rudelbach when one reads Kierkegaard’s journals. Kierkegaard was skeptical about any kind of formation of a congregation, because he knew that the tendency to become elitist and exclusive was a temptation. He found this confirmed when he regarded the Grundtvigian movement, but also when he spoke about rudelbach and “his party,”31 “the old orthodox,”32 as he called them, that is, the old-fashioned lutheran faithful, of which, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, rudelbach was the most outstanding representative. rudelbach’s now strong distancing of himself from grundtvig and the grundtvigan milieu could look like desertion or opportunism because he wished to adopt his view in accordance with the opinion of those, who should recommend him for a position at the university or for a high position in the church. even if after 1845 one can assert that rudelbach made an approach to both mynster and Clausen, it cannot be claimed that this was due to opportunism, for rudelbach had never been a grundtvigian.33 it should also not be forgotten that it was consistent with rudelbach’s nature to fight and be polemical. One of the debates that Rudelbach played a role in should be mentioned in this connection. an anonymous article in Berlingske Tidende in 1847 about the relationship between Christianity and (danish) nationality, which was 28 stochholm, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, pp. 80ff.; Kaiser, Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach ein Zeuge der lutherischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, pp. 58ff. 29 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Det borgerlige Ægteskab, Copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851. 30 as an example, one can mention rudelbach’s book, Die Sacramentworte, oder die wesentlichen Stücke der Taufe und des Abendmahls, historisch-kritisch dargestellt, leipzig: tauchnitz 1837, which grundtvig reviewed. in the review he said that he missed an account for the claim that the “first Principle in all ecclesial and Christian enlightenment” “in a living sum [is] the apostolic creed at baptism and next only every living word which is in harmony with the creed.” it would certainly have required a longer book, “developed in a different keen way and historically carried out,” but grundtvig writes directly that he is missing “a reference to our striving here [in denmark] for the common faith and the enlightment necessary for all of us.” He is of course thinking of the “matchless discovery.” n.F.s. grundtvig, “dr. rudelbachs Betragtning af sacrament-ordene,” Nordisk Kirke-Tidende, no. 37, 1837, columns 740–1. 31 SKS 24, 229, nB23:44. 32 SKS 24, 224–6, nB23:36 and nB23:36.a. / JP 6, 6728 and 6729. 33 rudelbach spoke thus at mynster’s funeral; see andreas gottlob rudelbach, Ved Biskop Jacob Peter Mynsters Jordefærd den 7de Februar 1854, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzels Bo og arvinger 1854, pp. 25–9. at the scandinavian Church meeting in 1857 rudelbach applauded a statement that there was much dogmatically in which he agreed with Clausen; see Frederik Helveg, “dr. rudelbachs dom om lærefrihed og den lutherske lære-regel. en aaben skrivelse til pastor v. Birkedal,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 50, 1857, columns 804–5.

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

311

directed against grundtvig and the grundtvigians,34 provoked grundtvig to react with an article entitled “popular Character and Christianity,”35 while rudelbach wrote an entire book.36 As usual, Rudelbach treats the problem raised by first giving a biblical and historical account of it. He claims that Christianity’s universality and meaning is something that transcends national borders and directs his criticism at grundtvig and his followers.37 grundtvig responded with a new article, and several others did the same.38 one of the grundtvigians, F.e. Boisen (1808–82), attacked rudelbach in Fædrelandet for helping the cause of german nationalism, which is wholly absurd since in his book rudelbach had distanced himself from a mixing of Christianity and nationalism, regardless of whether it takes place on german or danish soil.39 Kierkegaard noted in his journal: i have always maintained that all men have equal access to passion and feeling; this has been my consolation. But yet one also sees the hazards. a bustling oaf like pastor Boiesen blasts at dr. rudelbach’s scholarship, etc., for he (Boiesen) is a patriot! Bravo, what an enormous lie. merely by being a patriot, merely by shouting about it, one becomes somebody. i had thought that by being a patriot one was a patriot and that was that.40

there can be no doubt that Kierkegaard’s view was closer to that of rudelbach than grundtvig.41 at the scandinavian Church meeting in 1857 there also arose a controversy with the grundtvigians. Here rudelbach was especially opposed by his old friend p.C. Kierkegaard.42 in these years rudelbach must have been a quite lonely man. His old friends who now belonged to the grundtvigian circle distanced themselves from [anonymous], “om de theologiske tilstande i danmark. af en landsbypræst,” Berlingske Tidende, october 5, 1847. 35 see n.F.s. grundtvig, “Folkelighed og Christendom,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 107, 1847, columns 33–44. 36 see andreas gottlob rudelbach, Christendom og Nationalitet. En bibelsk-historisk Betragtning og Beviisførelse, tilegnet Danmarks hæderlige Geistlighed, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1847. it was translated into german in the Zeitschrift für Lutherische Theologie und Kirche, 1848, pp. 477–555. 37 ibid., pp. 12ff., p. 54; p. 62. rudelbach thinks that grundtvig represents what he calls “an egostic national concept,” see ibid., p. 14. 38 n.F.s. grundtvig, “om Folkeligheden og dr. rudelbach,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 20, 1848, columns 313–23. see thomas Hansen erslew, Supplement til “Almindeligt ForfatterLexicon,” vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Forlagsforeningen Forlag 1858–68, vol. 2, pp. 867–8. 39 F.e. Boisen, “olshausen og rudelbach,” Fædrelandet, no. 107, april 20, 1848; rudelbach, Christendom og Nationalitet, pp. 7–8, note 9; F.e. Boisen, [“om dr. rudelbach”], Dansk Kirketidende, no. 139, 1848, columns 566–68. 40 Pap. viii–1 a 665 / JP 1, 1014. 41 Cf. Pap. Xi–3 B 184. Here Kierkegaard in 1855 is happy that rudelbach discusses the question of whether grundtvig regards the danes as the chosen people. 42 see Forhandlingerne paa det første skandinaviske Kirkemøde. Kjøbenhavn Juli 1857, ed. by Fr. Hammerich, Copenhagen: C.g. iversens Boghandel 1857, pp. 48–65; otto Holmgaard, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1953, p. 45. 34

312

Søren Jensen

him, and were even hostilely disposed. the theologians at the university had blocked the way for him to make a career there, and the leadership of the church had not been able to offer him more than a position as a parish pastor. rudelbach consoled himself with his studies and his authorship. II. Rudelbach and Kierkegaard as noted, rudelbach was a visitor in søren Kierkegaard’s childhood home, and he maintained contact with the family after he departed for germany. there can be no doubt that Kierkegaard had a friendly disposition towards rudelbach and that he respected him as the learned man that he was. only when rudelbach in 1851 referred to Kierkegaard in support of his own view in the book On Civil Marriage, did he receive a new status in Kierkegaard’s consciousness. especially after rudelbach’s return home in 1845 it can be determined that he and Kierkegaard sent each other copies of their books, but the following statement by rudelbach indicates that he, even before he returned to denmark, had given Kierkegaard copies of his works. rudelbach writes in 1851: “most of the writings i have published in the last ten or twelve years already lie before my friend’s eyes.”43 He could only know this if he, starting from around 1840, had given him his publications. according to The Auction Catalogue, Kierkegaard owned 11 of rudelbach’s books along with the Theologisk Maanedsskrift.44 in the journals he refers to several of these publications, not least of all rudelbach’s edition of the Confessio Augustana from 1826, 45 the edition that he had used from his early days.46 rudelbach owned most of Kierkegaard’s books, and at least seven of these he received as a gift from the author.47 in a letter from november 18, 1850 rudelbach andreas gottlob rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, p. 145. 44 Cf. ASKB 171, 193, 273, 284, 285–293, 386, 750, 751, 752, 1958, 2030, and 346–351. 45 Kierkegaard had two editions of the Confessio Augustana in his library, but since H.n. Clausen’s Den Augsburgske Confession, oversat og belyst ved historisk-dogmatisk Udvikling (Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851) only appeared in 1851 (ASKB 387), it is rudelbach’s which is referred to. 46 see, for example, Pap. i a 316. SKS 17, 260, dd:134 / KJN 1, 251. Pap. viii–1 a 675. SKS 25, 219-21, nB28:9. 47 From the catalogue from the book auction after rudelbach’s death, we can see that he owned almost all of Kierkegaard’s books: however, one does not find Fear and Trembling, Philosophical Fragments, The Concept of Anxiety or the Concluding Unscientific Postscript. in this connection it is interesting that What Christ Judges about Official Christianity, which appeared during the attack on the church in 1855 is also a copy given as a gift; see Bibliotheca Rudelbachiana sive catalogus librorum quos collegit et reliquit Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach, p. 218; p. 267; p. 287; p. 310; p. 367; p. 406; BA, vol. 1, p. 340 / LD, p. 432, dedication 11.c. BA, vol. 1, p. 342 / LD, p. 434, dedication 13.c. BA, vol. 1, p. 343 / LD, p. 435, dedication 14.c. see also niels Jørgen Cappelørn, gert posselt, and Bent rohde, Tekstspejle. Om Søren Kierkegaard som bogtilrettelægger, boggiver og bogsamler, esbjerg: rosendahls forlag 2002, p. 80. 43

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

313

thanks Kierkegaard upon receiving Practice in Christianity and sends his “dear friend” a book in return.48 it is quite probable that he also sent Kierkegaard a copy of the book on civil marriage, in which he mentions him positively. in 1856, at the auction following Kierkegaard’s death, rudelbach bought a number of books, primarily philosophical literature.49 A. on Civil marriage with the adoption of the Constitution and the introduction of democracy in denmark there were a series of matters that required more detailed legislation, among other things, the matter which is discussed in § 84, where it is written that no one “based on his religious belief can be denied access to the full use of civil and political rights.” in the fall of 1850, n.m. spandet (1788–1858), one of grundtvig’s supporters, therefore proposed a law in the parliament concerning the elimination of forced baptism and oath-swearing and of the introduction of civil marriage. a pastor in the people’s Church was supposed to function as an authority when one entered into marriage, but this demand was in the opinion of many, no longer in step with the times, since the Constitution guaranteed religious freedom (§ 81). in spite of this, the proposal was the cause of a violent debate. many feared for the very dissolution of the church and Christianity itself if the suggestion were to become law. the result was that on april 13, 1851 a law was adopted concerning the introduction of civil marriage. it was, however, a restricted law, which was only used in limited cases in the following years. during the debate prior to the adoption of the law, grundtvig made a number of appeals for the introduction of civil marriage. rudelbach too was a strong proponent of the proposed law, and so with regard to their point of view, the two comrades in arms came together again. one can regard the publication of rudelbach’s book On Civil Marriage as his contribution to the debate.50 typically for rudelbach, he begins with a thorough historical treatment of the subject. He goes through the history of marriage from the time of the early church up until the present and refers to numerous sources. already in the very title of the book rudelbach writes that the presentation is both many-sided and impartial—a claim closely connected with his course of thought and form of argumentation. BA, vol. 1, p. 288 / LD, p. 366, letter 269. it is probable that this was Den evangeliske Kirkeforfatnings Oprindelse og Princip, dens Udartning og dens mulige Gjenreisning, fornemmelig i Danmark. Et udførligt kirkeretligt og kirkehistorisk Votum for virkelig Religionsfrihed, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1849 (ASKB 171). 49 this concerns the following numbers from The Auction Catalogue: ASKB 479–481, 573–575, 576, 642, 740, 760, 842, 846, 866, 990, and 1672. 50 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, Copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851. the publication of this work is announced in Kjøbenhavns kongelig alene priviligerede Adressecomptoirs Efterretninger, no. 20, January 24, 1851. as early as January 16 and January 18, it was announced that the book would appear “in a few days.” Kierkegaard owned this work (ASKB 752). the book was sold at the auction to the book dealer Hans Hagerup (1823–83). 48

314

Søren Jensen

nonetheless the book was a contribution to the debate. thus he writes that it was written “for the sake of the importance of the moment.” 51 although rudelbach was a strong proponent of a law about civil marriage, he wanted to try to give as objective a presentation of the issue as possible. when he likewise claims that the judgment of civil marriage will “especially” be made “from the standpoint of the church,”52 this does not mean that his view was the generally accepted one among the men of the church, but that it was to the advantage of the church to introduce such a law. in the introduction of the book the current debate is mentioned and the two opposite positions on the proposal about civil matrimony are layed out. on the one side, it was claimed that, without complete freedom what the Constitution calls the “Folkekirke” would merely be an outward change of name, while in fact it would be a continuation of “the old State Church.” on the other side, it was claimed that the introduction of civil matrimony would virtually undermine faith, as if the proposal would affect “the people’s religious constitution” in a negative direction. Further, the opponents claimed that the proposal had no popular backing. if the fusing of “the church and the civil aspect in marriage,” which was valid, were to be dissolved, they feared that “immorality, depravity, idolatry could not be stopped.” in other words, the opposition put the legislative proposal in connection with the “not merely negative, but destructive forces,” which were at present being set loose “in all socialist and communist theories,”53 a point of view which rudelbach found absurd and therefore rejected. rudelbach posed a series of hypothetical questions: if the investigation which we wanted to undertake showed that the opponents’ fear was based on “misunderstandings”; if the church’s interests were not attacked with the introduction of the civil marriage; if it can be practiced even where marriage is a sacrament; if the political development demanded it, and if many “regrettable complications between church and state” could be avoided when one introduces civil marriage, one supposes that the opponents, “the well-meaning, honorable men, would give up their opposition and understand that “it is a matter of showing the people the issue in its proper light in order to make it clear that the introduction of civil marriage in no way denies them, but on the contrary, ensures them the great church-blessing, which the wedding ceremony involves, where it is justifiably desired and justifiably announced.”54 after this follows the book’s longest section with the historical explanation. in the conclusion to the account of the medieval conception of marriage, rudelbach writes that people “theoretically held firmly...to the point that the civil marriage...was the substance of marriage, while they sought in practice make all marriages uniform by raising them to the church marriage.”55 a quotation from one of Catholicism’s great polemicists, Jacques Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704) supports rudelbach’s view:

51 52 53 54 55

rudelbach, Det borgerlige Ægteskab, p. 5. ibid., pp. 2–3. ibid. ibid., pp. 3–4. ibid., p. 32.

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

315

one cannot confuse marriage with the sacrament of marriage. marriage is a contract, by which a man and a woman bind themselves to live together until the death of one of the contracting partners; the sacrament of marriage is an external ritual, introduced by Jesus Christ in order to make sacred this contract and the binding that is a consequence of it.56

as a Catholic, Bossuet regarded marriage as a sacrament, but he is nonetheless able to distinguish between contract and wedding. in this section of the book, the age of reformation, “our genuine native soil and maternal womb,”57 of course plays an important role. in addition to rejecting the idea of marriage as a sacrament, the reformers distanced themselves from the devalued view of marriage, which lay implicitly in the “elevated” status that celibacy had in the Catholic Church. one point that people agreed on was the substantial element—in agreement with the quotation from Bossuet—that marriage was already consummated “by the obvious agreement between the betrothed parties,”58 that is, before a Church wedding took place. But with various quotations from luther’s works rudelbach demonstrates the special status marriage had for him and the respect he showed it, and he emphasizes that here there was no talk of devaluing the civil marriage. “on the contrary, he counted marriages in general as belonging to civil matters and claimed that marriage was a free matter.”59 rudelbach quotes, for example, from luther’s Traubüchlein für die einfältigen Pfarrherrn, where it is written that “the marriage ceremony and the married state are a mundane affair,” which the priests should only be involved in if the married couple ask for a blessing or wedding.60 in this connection rudelbach added a footnote with a remark about the significance of Luther’s marriage to Katharina von Bora: “Perhaps one will likewise not disdain the fact that Luther’s own marriage to Katharina von Bora was straightforwardly a civil marriage.”61 people reacted to this remark. It is generally known that Luther first and foremost regarded marriage as a civil institution, about which the secular authorities should legislate and determine, and rudelbach can be said to present his position loyally. His various references to luther, to, among others his “masterpiece” Von Ehesachen (1530), were therefore also regarded as a weighty argument in the current debate about the introduction of civil marriage and therefore something that the opponents of the law reacted to. only four days after rudelbach’s book had appeared, on January 24, Bishop mynster, who was a strong opponent of the proposal, had a commentary in the newspaper, the Berlingske Tidende, where he, albeit without mentioning names but clearly occasioned by rudelbach (and grundtvig), argues for the claim that luther’s marriage was not a civil, “god-forsaken” marriage, but a wedding consecrated on

56 57 58 59 60 61

ibid., p. 34. ibid., p. 32. ibid., p. 35. ibid., p. 38. ibid., pp. 38–9. ibid., p. 39, note 75.

316

Søren Jensen

the ground of the Church.62 on February 5 rudelbach responded to mynster with an article in which he maintains and further supports his view of luther’s marriage. He makes it probable that luther regarded his “betrothal” before the Church blessing, as the actual entering of his marriage. rudelbach criticizes mynster for constructing his views based on secondary literature and is disappointed that mynster does not regard him as being a reliable authority in the field of history.63 mynster’s opposition to the introduction of a civil marriage and his opposition to rudelbach should especially be remembered when we turn to Kierkegaard’s reaction to rudelbach’s mention of him in his little book. B. Kierkegaard’s Article in Fædrelandet (1851) In the final chapter of the book, Rudelbach describes “the positive turn” which the introduction of civil marriage will have for the relation between church and state. in general, it is in the interest of the church “to be emancipated from what has been correctly called habitual and state Christianity.”64 the institutional clutch, which the church had on people’s social life, for example, in connection with the entering into marriage, forced them, according to rudelbach’s opinion, into a form of habitual Christianity. He regards civil marriage as “an important, perhaps indispensable means”65 for avoiding this habitual Christianity and thinks that it will be an important step on the way to the realization of complete freedom of religion. 62 Cf. Berlingske politiske og Avertissements-Tidende, no. 23, January 28, 1851. Concerning the introduction of civil marriage, grundtvig, as mentioned, was in line with rudelbach’s view. this is clear from his statements in the parliament during the negotiations about the proposed law; see ernst J. Borup and Frederik schrøder, Haandbog i N.F.S. Grundtvigs Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: Hagerup 1929–31, vol. 3, pp. 302ff. Concerning his statement that Luther’s marriage was civil, this is confirmed indirectly by grundtvig’s discussion of mynster’s contribution in the context of the second treatment of the proposed law (January 30); see Borup and schrøder, Haandbog i N.F.S. Grundtvigs Skrifter, pp. 306–7. However, mynster, in Berlingske Tidende, probably built on an imprecise account of grundtvig’s discussion of luther’s view of marriage in the sermon on the second sunday after Helligtrekonger (January 19), see N.F.S. Grundtvigs Vartov-Prædikener 1839–1860, ed. by Holger Begtrup, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1924, pp. 281–2. see also C.J. Brandt, “luther om Ægteskab, en litterærhistorisk anmærkning,” Dansk Kirketidende, no. 286, 1851, columns 193–7. 63 andreas gottlob rudelbach, “om luthers Ægteskab,” Berlingske politiske og Avertissements-Tidende, no. 30, February 5, 1851; Jakob peter mynster, “luthers Ægteskab,” Berlingske politiske og Avertissements-Tidende, no. 31, February 6, 1851. also professor C.t. engelstoft (1805–89) contributed to the debate with an article in the same paper: “var luthers Ægteskab et borgerligt Ægteskab?” in support of mynster, see Berlingske politiske og Avertissements-Tidende, no. 24, January 29, 1851. Finally d.e. rugaard (1806–75) “proved” that “luthers Ægteskab var et kirkeligt Ægteskab,” see Den Nordiske Folkeskole, no. 6, February 7, 1851, columns 73–83. this was answered by rudelbach in “endnu nogle nødvendig blevne oplysninger betræffende Formen af luthers Ægteskab,” see Den Nordiske Folkeskole, no. 9, February 28, 1851, columns 113–17. 64 rudelbach, Det borgerlige Ægteskab, pp. 69–70. 65 ibid., p. 70.

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

317

it is, however, an exaggeration to speak of habitual Christianity in this connection. in any case rudelbach’s way of using the word does not fully cover Kierkegaard’s use of the expression. nonetheless this expression occasions rudelbach to think of Kierkegaard, for this is the place in the text where he adds the note and writes: “this is the same thing which one of our most outstanding writers from recent days, Søren Kierkegaard, seeks to inculcate, impress and, as Luther says, drive home into everyone who wants to hear.”66 whatever rudelbach might have meant about civil marriage’s effects, Kierkegaard did not want to be given credit for a change in the existing order of things in the way rudelbach made a case for it, and therefore he opposed him and wrote his article against him.67 as a kind of motto for the article, Kierkegaard gave both a quotation from rudelbach’s text and from the apparently innocent footnote in which he is spoken of so highly.68 Kierkegaard begins by protesting against the fact that rudelbach ignores the pseudonymity of his works and brings together all the authors under one, “søren Kierkegaard,” something which he time and again said should not be done.69 with respect to the footnote or the statement, Kierkegaard grants that it is not completely wrong, or, put more correctly, that it is half true. it is true that Kierkegaard hates “habitual Christianity in whatever form it appears.”70 However, habitual Christianity can show itself in various ways which Kierkegaard illustrates by juxtaposing “a secular thoughtlessness that nonchalantly goes on living in the illusion of being Christian” without knowing what Christianity at bottom means, to “the kind of habitual Christianity that is found in the sects, the enthusiasts, the superorthodox, the ‘members of the party.’ ”71 He thus juxtaposes those for whom Christianity does not go so deeply but for whom the belonging to the people’s Church is immediately obvious, to those who, by contrast, are conscious—and even self-conscious—about what it means to be a Christian. By designating the latter group as habitual Christians, Kierkegaard draws attention to the fact that religious consciousness in itself does not guarantee the merit of the Christian praxis. With a definition of habitual Christianity which includes the orthodox and the members of the party, Kierkegaard, without a doubt, tries to include rudelbach himself. moreover, he adds that if he should choose, he would unconditionally choose the first form of habitual Christianity, and thus distance himself from all forms of exclusive Christian praxis.

ibid., p. 70, note 121. Kierkegaard, “Foranlediget ved en yttring af dr. rudelbach mig betræffende,” Fædrelandet, no. 26, 1851, pp. 101–2 (SV1 Xiii, 436–44 / COR, 51–9). 68 The Corsair made fun of the fact that Kierkegaard did not want to be praised but remained “furious about the apparent lack of decency.” see “privat injuriesag,” Corsaren, no. 542, February 7, 1851, column 8. 69 The first time in “A First and Last Explanation” added to the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, SKS 7, 569–73 / CUP1, 625–30. 70 Kierkegaard, “Foranlediget ved en yttring af dr. rudelbach mig betræffende,” SV1 Xiii, 437 / COR, 52. 71 SV1 Xiii, 437 / COR, 52. (Translation modified.) With the expression “the members of the party” Kierkegaard is referring to the grundtvigians to whom rudelbach did not belong. 66 67

318

Søren Jensen

one word which Kierkegaard does not want associated with his work is “emancipation,” and when it is emphasized in connection with what rudelbach calls “state Christianity,” one might think that Kierkegaard would agree to a separation of church and state or merely to a change in the existing institutions, but in fact he does not. He never worked for a “change in the external” and will not be ascribed the view which assumes that such a change will have a positive influence on the state of Christianity. on the contrary, he does everything in order to make Christianity inward and had carefully formulated his position, and so, he claims, there is no reason for a misunderstanding like rudelbach’s to ever take place. “there is nothing about which i have greater misgivings than about all that even slightly tastes of this disastrous confusion of politics and Christianity.”72 in so far as one can talk of “Christianity’s perfection,”73 this depends not on the external but can appear under the most imperfect circumstances. rudelbach argues that an institution such as marriage, for its own sake, ought to be liberated from the church, but he also argues that such a liberation would be beneficial for “the Church and Christianity.”74 also here Kierkegaard opposes him. He does not think that “the free institutions”75 will benefit or save Christianity, since what is decisive in Christianity lies not in the external but in inwardness and making inward in the way that he has always tried to present it. “such is my Christianity [Christendom], or so Christian-dumb [christendum] am i,” he adds ironically.76 to the extent there should be a separation of church and state, one ought to leave the decision to “those who are regularly appointed and trained for such things,”77 by which he might very well have in mind the leader of the church, Bishop mynster. Kierkegaard always fought with the weapons of spirit and with them has drawn attention to the “illusion”78 that people wrap themselves in. the illusion that he refers to, whatever one might think of it, is that something external can hinder one from or help one in becoming Christian. Christianity is inwardness, “victorious inwardness,”79 and for this reason Kierkegaard has set for himself the task of awakening “self-concern” in “the single individual,” and keeping “the ideals” high in order thereby to preserve the single individual in self-concern so that he does not become lax or a habitual Christian.80 rudelbach and Kierkegaard have different views of Christianity. rudelbach regards it to a great degree as something that can be defined and reserves it for the orthodox, while Kierkegaard emphasizes the dialectic in the unchangeable’s SV1 Xiii, 438 / COR, 53. SV1 Xiii, 439 / COR, 54. 74 with the introduction of civil marriage, the church wanted to “come into real agreement with the doctrine/teaching of our dogmaticians and ethicists about marriage and wedding, with the demands of our symbolic books, with Luther and the reformation.” see rudelbach, Om det borgerlige Ægteskab, pp. 67–8. 75 SV1 Xiii, 439 / COR, 54. 76 ibid. 77 ibid. 78 ibid. 79 SV1 Xiii, 440 / COR, 55. 80 ibid. 72 73

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

319

changeableness, such as it is characterized in Christianity. even if rudelbach is probably “the most learned man in denmark”81 and has knowledge that goes far beyond that of Kierkegaard, which the latter with becoming modesty acknowledges, it has been necessary to draw attention to the misunderstood emphasis on the point of his activity as a writer, especially when rudelbach, in his statements, shows an appreciation of Kierkegaard. He would rather not risk that he by this would be enrolled in “a certain party,”82 as he writes. Kierkegaard is certainly thinking of what is referred to somewhat vaguely as “the orthodox.” Kierkegaard of course distances himself from rudelbach’s idea that the free institutions “will save the Church and Christianity,” and he does not hide his suspicion “of these politically achieved free institutions”83 and of politics in general. in several places he mentions his disdain for the basic pillars of democracy, for voting, for “balloting,” for “the masses,” for the forming of parties. in a postscript to the article Kierkegaard attempts to avoid the misunderstanding that he is against any form of change, even if he has never taken this up in his authorship. He is aware that “we should obey god rather than men” (acts 5:39),84 that Christianity is not “indifference to the external,”85 and that one therefore can come into the situation, where it is necessary to do something. But how did the apostles act in their time and how did they not act? indeed, they did not act like “modern Christians,”86 that is, they did not conspire to affect those in power, but they stood as individuals. in spite of the risk of persecution and execution, the apostle let “the established order exist.” if a collision takes place between the established order and the Christian, then it becomes for him a “matter of conscience” to maintain his view, so that he has nothing to do other than “through suffering...to choose martyrdom.”87 with the expression “the modern Christians” Kierkegaard is thinking of the politicians and especially of grundtvig. in a crossed-out passus in the clean copy of the article, he writes that “the oldtime ur-ur-Christianity’s former representative, the present ‘grundtvig at the rigsdag’ has become even more modern.”88 since Christianity is a “matter of conscience,” Kierkegaard constantly sought to awaken the self-concern in the individual, who develops an “indifference for the external.” Kierkegaard names luther as an example of the individual who has consulted god and his conscience, when he was faced with the question of taking the step to get married. Characteristically, Kierkegaard in no way touches on the question of to what extent luther’s marriage was entered upon as a civil or church union. the question does not interest him. But the example suggests that Kierkegaard noted the disagreement between rudelbach and mynster. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

ibid. SV1 Xiii, 441 / COR, 56. (Translation slightly modified.) SV1 Xiii, 439 / COR, 54. SV1 Xiii, 441 / COR, 56. SV1 Xiii, 442 / COR, 57. (Translation slightly modified.) ibid. SV1 Xiii, 442 / COR, 58. Pap. X–5 B 121, 5.

320

Søren Jensen

on the whole, Kierkegaard’s considerations in this article concerning the relation of the established order are interesting to compare with what he writes a few years later during the attack on the Church in The Moment. in an article there, where he speaks of the marriage ceremony, while he does not argue directly for the introduction of civil marriage, it is not considered something profoundly wrong. to give marriage a religious dimension, he writes, “is the worst thing of all,” for then “it is preferable to be married by a blacksmith.”89 C. Rudelbach’s Response one week after Kierkegaard’s protest has appeared, rudelbach dates a longer response to him, which was published in two numbers of Fædrelandet on February 13 and 14.90 rudelbach claims that Kierkegaard’s objection rests on a misunderstanding, which rudelbach wants to give an account of and thereby eliminate. He admits that it is easy to be misunderstood when one—like him—defends “the freedom of conscience, religion and the church,”91 because one might suspect that this is done in order to make the church secular and not in order to preserve it as an institution for “repentant sinners.” a misunderstanding of this kind can arise because there is historical evidence that the church as a free organization has assumed secular forms, such as what has happened in the Catholic Church. For this reason the misunderstanding could thus have arisen, but it ought not to have, for even if the books, which rudelbach had published over the last 10–12 years had treated different themes, they have all focused on a common “point,” namely, the freedom of the church, and, moreover, because “the greatest part” of these books—as already noted—lies before Kierkegaard’s eyes. Kierkegaard could not have presented the relation between the individual and the crowd, between the inner and the outer in a more confused fashion than he did in his article. Kierkegaard’s task has been “to present Christianity as ‘the victorious inwardness’ and to awaken care for blessedness in the individual.”92 in opposition to this, Kierkegaard presents rudelbach as someone, who by means of free institutions, political progress, and “external forms” has sought to achieve the emancipation of the church. He is alleged to have thereby mixed Christianity and politics in an unacceptable manner, and Kierkegaard absurdly lumps rudelbach together with the socialists.

Kierkegaard, “Confirmationen og Vielsen; christeligt Comedie-Spil eller det som værre er,” Øieblikket, no. 7 (SV1 Xiv, 261 / M, 247). the humorous paper The Corsair, which in 1846 denounced Kierkegaard, was not slow to do so again. an article, “privat injuriesag,” speaks ironically about Kierkegaard’s resentment, claiming that he has been praised by rudelbach. Corsaren, no. 542, February 7, 1851, columns 8–9. 90 andreas gottlob rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, February 13, p. 145 and no. 38, February 14, 1851, pp. 149–50. 91 ibid. 92 andreas gottlob rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, p. 145. 89

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

321

Just as Kierkegaard had claimed that the readers could find not a single place, “not a passage, not a sentence, not a line”93 in his authorship, where he speaks for a change in the existing order, so also now Rudelbach challenges the readers to find in his books the “basic doctrines” which Kierkegaard ascribes to him, and claims that on the contrary, he has “disapproved, indeed, condemned such a way of cultivating Christianity and elevating the Church.”94 rudelbach refers to his book from 1839, Reformation, Lutherthum und Union, and to another from 1849,95 both of which Kierkegaard owned, and shows how he presented Christianity in these books as inwardness, but an inwardness, which necessarily must show itself in outward forms, which do not have any independence in themselves or as such should be different from the inner. He has always expressed himself in this way about the freedom of religion and claimed that it should not be conceived “as an accessory but as something which is immanent in the Kingdom of Christ.”96 on the fact that Christianity is inwardness or that Christianity begins here, rudelbach is completely in agreement with Kierkegaard. therefore, he has—like Kierkegaard—struggled for the church to become a reality and for Christianity to receive a significance in the life of the people. He has worked to introduce freedom. in its concrete form, the church’s freedom encompasses, according to rudelbach “Presbyters and synods,” since they are the ones, as he says, who “are grounded in the very idea of the church,”97 and the protestant Church has from the beginning sought to find a compensation for this form of assembly or directly sought to establish them. rudelbach says that he has not thought before that Kierkegaard had a different conception of what inwardness means and how the inward makes itself known in the outer. with a reference to his collection of sermons Kirchenspiegel (1850),98 rudelbach responds to the question of what should be done now. Here he mentions the “two great moments,” which the lord himself in “his last speeches” referred to, namely, “the word and work.”99 with regard to the word, there are two mistaken paths: one Kierkegaard, “Foranlediget ved en yttring af dr. rudelbach mig betræffende,” Fædrelandet, no. 26, 1851, p. 101 (SV1 Xiii, p. 438 / COR, 53). 94 rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, p. 145. 95 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Den evangeliske Kirkeforfatnings Oprindelse og Princip, dens Udartning og dens mulige Gjenreisning, fornemmelig i Danmark. Et udførligt kirkeretligt og kirkehistorisk Votum for virkelig Religionsfrihed, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1849 (ASKB 171). 96 rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, p. 145. 97 ibid. 98 andreas gottlob rudelbach, Kirchenspiegel. Ein Andachtsbuch zur häusliche Erbauung an allen Sonn- und Fest-Tagen, in einer Reihe dogmatisch-moralischer Vorträge über gewählte Abschnitte aus den Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, vol. 2, Pfingsten bis 25. Sonntag nach Trinitatis, erlangen: verlag von Heyder und zimmer 1850 (ASKB 284) [vol. 1, Advent bis Pfingsten, 1845]. 99 rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 37, 1851, p. 145. 93

322

Søren Jensen

can, like some people in the congregation in Corinth, forget it for spirituality, or one can with the help of the word assume power over the congregation. one must distance oneself from both of these, and there are also examples of both in the protestant Church. when the church’s order is disrupted, one should not merely be resigned but in the name of Jesus seek to “reestablish the order.”100 one should not allow oneself to “be frightened by the external pressure,” one should thus not merely stand by and accept that the outward forms are deformed, but one should help to modify them and should “in the time of the struggle, when the energy is fresh,” seek to develop them.101 in this endeavor, one should take “the blessing from god’s hand” and ask for it. “in these words are contained my entire politics for the church,”102 rudelbach emphasizes this with a quotation from the same collection of sermons, where he writes that the error of the church in and for itself does not lie in the external and institutional sphere but in the fact that “we have abandoned the first love.”103 He emphasizes again what is decisive in Christianity, namely, an in principle indissolvable connection between the inner and the outer, between theory and practice. Here these are two sides of the same issue. in a time when a lack of balance has materialized, one can only hope that god is merciful enough to let “a little spark” be preserved “under the ashes.”104 even if rudelbach says that Kierkegaard has misunderstood him, he nonetheless admits that there is a point of divergence between them. this can be elucidated in three points: one, which is concerned with the organization of the church, one which concerns the means of introducing “the free institutions of the church,” and one which concerns the very view of history. even though rudelbach argues against the indistinguishable connection between the inner and the outer in Christianity, he nonetheless admits that there can be differing conceptions of how the outer or political shape of inwardness should take form. rudelbach’s claim is that Kierkegaard has a theory that Christianity concerns “the one thing needed,” which means the individual’s infinite concern for his salvation. therefore, the question of the church’s organization and the Christian community is without meaning for Kierkegaard, or it is straightforwardly something which hinders “the one great care for the cause of salvation.”105 For rudelbach these are two sides of the same coin, and he does not think therefore that Kierkegaard’s theory fits with his praxis. one cannot remain in the individuality and inwardness, but must necessarily be interested in “sociality” and “the others,” and therefore also in the institution or the church, a charge which was often directed against Kierkegaard. apparently rudelbach forgets that Kierkegaard does not want to be made into a supporter of a change in the existing order, which to a great degree consists of an organization, a church with a board and hierarchy, etc. if rudelbach’s description were correct, then ibid. ibid. 102 ibid. 103 ibid. 104 ibid. 105 rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 38, 1851, p. 149. 100 101

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

323

Kierkegaard would have to start fighting against the existing order, and he did not do this, at least not at this point in time. He says this clearly and plainly. rudelbach argues together with paul for his view and shows that his interest in the church’s “shape and order” was not merely “an occupation with external forms,” and refers to his admonition of the community in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12 and 14). the Fathers of the Church also agreed with this—as rudelbach calls it—“great process of division and centralization,”106 to distinguish oneself from what one cannot accept and concentrate on what is important. with “the Church’s basic forces: the word and the sacraments”107 as what is the inner moving element, what is needed is an “operative procedure,” not least of all at a time when the Church has experienced a revival, and when democracy has been introduced into society. rudelbach knows well that this is no simple unambiguous task, and he regards the process as being “an examination of the Church,”108 but therefore as also being necessary. “this moment has again come into Christendom,”109 as rudelbach writes with another of Kierkegaard’s terms, but without any of the negative or critical meaning that lies in it. Concerning the means that should be used for the introduction of “the Church’s free institutions,” Kierkegaard and rudelbach are also in disagreement. rudelbach explains/declares that anything that “according to the evangelical basic doctrines” can lead to the development discussed here would be in itself acceptable. Concerning the third point of divergence—the view of history—rudelbach cannot accept that Kierkegaard attacks the theological use of history in order partly to emphasize Christianity’s magnificent side and partly to “cover the degradation of Christ and the offense of the cross.”110 according to rudelbach’s view, the history reflects “both the one and the other.”111 it deals with both a “forward-moving prophesy through all the centuries of the magnificence of Jesus Christ,” and it also includes the “degradation of the lord.”112 this is also a theme of importance during the attack on the Church in the last year of Kierkegaard’s life. it was Kierkegaard’s complaint that rudelbach, with his “statement” in the footnote, ascribed to him a view that Kierkegaard would not claim, namely, that to be compelled to let oneself be married by a pastor would encourage “habitual Christianity,” and that in striving to oppose it therefore one ought to introduce civil marriage. rudelbach does not take any position on this complaint, but merely regards Kierkegaard’s “advertisement” as a big misunderstanding and ends by having Kierkegaard support the view that rudelbach in general expresses: incidentally, everyone will believe our assurance that from our standpoint we would of course continue in the most wonderful manner to apply to every such divergence, which ibid. ibid. 108 ibid. 109 ibid. 110 ibid. 111 ibid. 112 ibid. rudelbach refers to Practice in Christianity. see, for example, SKS 12, 38ff. / PC, 23ff. 106 107

324

Søren Jensen at bottom only arises from misunderstanding the word of the lord, luke 9:50 [he who is not for us is against us], and that nothing shall hold us back now from highly esteeming and with brotherly love embracing a man who has sacrificed the one great thing the world does not know, his time, his industry, his life.113

rudelbach did not grasp Kierkegaard’s opposition to being ascribed a view which, according to rudelbach’s opinion, was illuminating and even in agreement with Kierkegaard’s own. D. “The End of the Affair” Kierkegaard then wrote a response to rudelbach, which he called “the end of the affair,”114 but he never published it. Here he is far more sarcastic and ironic in his tone than he was in the first article. He mentions that Rudelbach ends his article by listing the points of divergence between them and by concluding that he is in agreement with Kierkegaard: “well, wasn’t that just what i said?”115 according to rudelbach, there were, however, only points of divergence, in so far as Kierkegaard wanted “to remain in his isolation.” Kierkegaard, however, holds rudelbach to the claim that they are in disagreement. Kierkegaard does not want to change the established order: he, by contrast, has “in the most anxious fear and trembling of conscience” in the entire authorship, taken care not to mention “even a jot or title hinting at external change.”116 the disagreement between them continued, based on Kierkegaard’s reluctance to change the established order. Kierkegaard recalls what he had written in his article, that a collision with the established order is not thereby excluded. such a collision can be necessary if it has become a “matter of conscience” for a single human being, but it is not something which one can vote about or do in a group. Kierkegaard emphasizes that the disagreement is not about a differing view of the relation between Christianity and politics as one might perhaps be tempted to believe when one reads rudelbach’s article, for rudelbach has shown with his footnote that he has misunderstood Kierkegaard. He refuses to be given credit for rudelbach’s position, and refuses to “be regarded as one who is in complete agreement with dr. r.”117 Kierkegaard will not discuss the fact that rudelbach claims that there is a misunderstanding; rather, Kierkegaard merely maintains that they are in disagreement. He thinks that he has the right to do this given that rudelbach speaks too much about freedom: and now, since everything, after all, is supposed to be free in our time, since we are to have civil marriage without wedding ceremony and union, so i too shall be free,

113 rudelbach, “afnødt erklæring om et personligt punkt og tillige om Betydningen af ‘Kirkens frie institutioner,’ ” Fædrelandet, no. 38, 1851, Fædrelandet, no. 38, 1851, p. 150. 114 Pap. X–5 B 128, B 129 / COR, 247–52. 115 Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 324 / COR, 247. 116 ibid. 117 Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 327 / COR, 249.

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

325

and i hope that no one joins me together with dr. r. by forced union if i have even the slightest misgiving about it.118

this piece has a somewhat different wording in the article’s draft,119 and both passages are crossed out. after having established the disagreement, Kierkegaard says, “i see with joy that dr. r. has maintained unchanged his friendly good will toward me,”120 which is not an exaggeration. rudelbach refers to Kierkegaard “as his honored friend” no less then 15 times in his response. But when rudelbach at the end of the article speaks of Kierkegaard as a person who has sacrificed “his time, his industry, his life” in god, Kierkegaard cannot hold himself back. what rudelbach writes, “is much too much,”121 he says. as a poet, he has kept his ideals high and in this connection has done everything not to be confused with the perfection that he portrays and adds: “with respect to my undertaking, I have not sacrificed either my time or my labor, and least of all my life.”122 He has the possibility of living as an independent author “occupied...in testifying that such glorious ones have lived, who, by stepping forth in character, have shown that they had a cause of conscience.”123 one can say that these people sacrificed themselves and for this reason Kierkegaard has respect for them. as a poet, he has even portrayed the Christian message dialectically. He has loved “the ideals” because they make “a man unhappy” at the same time as they make “a man indescribably happy.”124 He has tried to mediate the individual’s direct contact to his own existence, for which reason he is irritated by politics, its forming of groups, and its ballots. He only respected a person who, for the sake of his own conscience stepped forward and defended his case alone. He did not respect a person who first tried “to be or talked nonsense about becoming a group of people who hopefully anticipated the result of the ballot.”125 This view fits well with what Kierkegaard wrote in the last year of his life when he stopped defending the existing order and instead went on the attack against it. in this sense he can be said to have sacrificed himself and carried out his “theory” into practice in a way that in any case in principle is concerned with rudelbach’s issue. in 1851 the time was still not ripe, and Kierkegaard would not allow rudelbach to mention him as a person who had sacrificed himself. Nevertheless he ended by being silent. after having written a draft of the article,126 he wrote a clean copy,127 but never published it. rudelbach would hardly have understood him, and a fruitless debate would certainly have continued. at the same time Kierkegaard wrote in his journal under the heading, “dr. rudelbach and i”: 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 327 / COR, 250. Pap. X–5 B 129. Pap. X–5 B 128, pp. 327–8 / COR, 250. Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 328 / COR, 250. Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 328 / COR, 250–1. Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 328 / COR, 251. Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 329 / COR, 252. Pap. X–5 B 128, p. 329. Pap. X–5 B 129. Pap. X–5 B 128.

326

Søren Jensen we shall never understand one another. For him it has long since been definitely settled that he is a Christian. And now he busies himself with history and the external forms of the Church. He has never felt the disquietude of the idea, wondering every single day whether he is now a Christian or not. “never”—no, because anyone who has felt this once, one day, one hour, does not let go of it during his entire life, or it never lets go of him. The idea has involved me in personal self-concern, and therefore I can never find time for projects, for i must begin every day with this concern: are you a Christian now? indeed, perhaps this very day there will be an existential collision which will make it clear that you are not a Christian at all.128

on may 2, 1851 Kierkegaard visited Bishop mynster, a visit which is referred to in detail in his journal,129 and which Kierkegaard returns to several times later. during the conversation Kierkegaard had discussed his most recent pseudonym, anti-Climacus, and this had been the condition for Kierkegaard being able to write against rudelbach in the article in Fædrelandet. mynster agreed with Kierkegaard on this point. the new pseudonym, who in opposition to Climacus declared himself “to be a Christian in an extraordinary degree,”130 made it clear that Kierkegaard in relation to Christianity was himself “someone striving.”131 He supported “the existing order,” and thereby indirectly supported mynster. For this reason he expected mynster’s recognition, which he had received, namely, in Further Contributions to the Negotiations about the Ecclesiastical Situation in Denmark,132 in which mynster argues for, among other things, his view of the institution of marriage and makes an objection to rudelbach’s view, and ends by giving Kierkegaard a few positive words of recognition along the way:133 among the happy appearances—we take up this word following one of our most talented authors—which we have seen during these discussions, is the resonance, which recently (see Fædrelandet no. 26) raised itself against the “Belief that it is in the outer that the error lies, that it is a change in the outer that is needed, change in the outer that will help us,” against the “unholy confusion of politics and Christianity, a confusion which can so easily bring up a new kind of Church reformation, a backward reformation, which places something new that is bad instead of something old that is better.” the gifted author will allow me at the end to borrow his words again: “that Christianity, which has life in itself, is supposed to be aided by the free institutions—this, according to my understanding, is a complete misconception of Christianity, which, where it is true in true inwardness, is infinitely higher and infinitely freer than all institutions, constitutions, etc.”134 SKS 24, 214, nB23:20 / JP 6, 6725. SKS 4, 334–6, nB24:30. 130 SKS 22, 128, nB11:204 / JP 6, 6431. 131 SKS 22, 151, nB12:9 / JP 6, 6446. 132 Jakob peter mynster, Yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i Danmark, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851. 133 Jakob peter mynster, “yderligere Bidrag til Forhandlingerne om de kirkelige Forhold i danmark,” in Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852–53, vol. 2, pp. 23–4 (ASKB 358–363) [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57]. 134 ibid., pp. 60–1. 128 129

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

327

the person mynster thinks of as “one of our most talented authors” is meïr aron goldschmidt (1819–87), who had become, for Kierkegaard, the essence of all the mockery that he had endured during the Corsair conflict. Kierkegaard had nothing against being mentioned and quoted in mynster’s writings, but he was offended that this was done in the same passage in which goldschmidt was mentioned with such praise. when rudelbach is discussed in the journals after this time, it is in connection with this insult, because it was on occasion of the article against rudelbach that he formulated his support of “the existing order.” thus ended the protest, “on occasion of a statement by dr. rudelbach” for Kierkegaard’s part with the fact that he was angry at mynster’s tactlessness.135 in early summer 1851 Kierkegaard read another one of rudelbach’s books, one about Girolamo Savonarola (1452–98) from 1835.136 it was a book that helped to inspire him to the criticism of the Church, which intensified during the following years and culminated in the attack on the Church in 1854–55. at that point in time there was no longer any reason to show consideration for mynster and “the existing order.” D. the point of view for my work as an author after Kierkegaard’s death, rudelbach had plans, according to Carl weltzer, to write a book about søren Kierkegaard.137 the plan, however, was never realized, but when p.C. Kierkegaard in 1859 published the posthumous manuscript of the largest of his brother’s books on his activity as an author, rudelbach wrote a review of it.138 rudelbach begins by giving what one calls a general characterization of Kierkegaard and reveals a complete lack of sense for the special structure of Kierkegaard’s authorship. Following up on the fact that in his previous article (1851) he designated Kierkegaard as a person who has sacrificed his life, Rudelbach thinks that it “lies open for the eyes of everyone” that Kierkegaard had the prerequisites to “become a ‘true witness of the truth.’ ”139 such a relatively short time after martensen’s eulogy on mynster had given the starting shot for the attack on the Church, it is amazing that rudelbach can write this. He had no reason at all to believe that Kierkegaard would have approved of such a statement. Further, writes rudelbach, Kierkegaard, with respect to judging his contemporary age, “was to a certain extent sharp-sighted.”140 a later time has judged Kierkegaard as an especially 135

p. 42.

Pap. X–6 B 173; 174; 179, 5; 186. Pap. Xi–2 a 311, p. 337 and Pap. Xi–3 B 15,

andreas gottlob rudelbach, Hieronymus Savonarola und seine Zeit. Aus den Quellen dargestellt, Hamburg: perthes 1835. this book is not found in The Auction Catalogue, but one can follow Kierkegaard’s reading in the Journal NB24, see nB24:19, nB24:24, nB24:27, nB24:29, nB24:32–5, nB24:37, nB24:39. 137 weltzer, “andreas gottlob rudelbach,” p. 297. 138 Kierkegaard, Synspunktet for min Forfatter-Virksomhed. En ligefrem Meddelelse, Rapport til Historien, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1859. reviewed by rudelbach in Evangelisk Ugeskrift, series 2, nos. 4–5, 1860, pp. 48–67. 139 ibid., p. 49. 140 ibid. 136

328

Søren Jensen

sharp-sighted analyst of his age. and when rudelbach says that Kierkegaard had “a profound psychological view,”141 but was often mistaken because he wanted to embrace more than he was entitled to, and that he “interfered with his judgment, who alone tested hearts and minds,”142 then it is clear that this is not in the least representative for what Kierkegaard was striving for. rudelbach quite correctly points to a problem in Kierkegaard, but a problem that he himself was entirely aware of. even if he thought that he could penetrate his contemporary age, he did not judge it, but left it to the reader alone to adjudicate and act. Right up to the final phase of his life, he distanced himself from his literary production by means of the help of pseudonymity, by refusing to ascribe to himself any form of authority; he was able to do this as a critic. the two questions—Kierkegaard’s “dedication” as a poet and “his plan” as author—cannot be answered directly by the authorship, but one receives an answer to them in the new book on the authorship. rudelbach wants therefore to “set forth what is substantial” in the “series of confessions”143 which the book consists of. Formulated with a somewhat inadequate linguistic usage, he wants to ask “to what degree the system, as whose representative in denmark he appeared, can in any way be assumed to complete the age’s religious task.”144 By quoting Kierkegaard, rudelbach refers to the description he gives in the book of his upbringing, how the ageing father’s influence all too early gave the child the impression that the suffering and “melancholy” which he inherited led him to lead a double life, since he developed the ability to hide his melancholy. in his childhood there was no room for immediacy; on the contrary, Kierkegaard became “reflection from beginning to end.” This fundamental opposition, according to rudelbach’s view, “had to affect Kierkegaard’s entire life view and bring him to the religious standpoint, which is characteristic of him.”145 this is doubtless a correct observation. therefore, it can only surprise us that rudelbach did not have any sense for the authorship’s “duplicity.” He apparently did not understand how the play between the aesthetic and the religious was present from the beginning and does not signal a development which culminates in “the religious goal.”146 it is correct that Kierkegaard divides the authorship into three categories: (1) an aesthetic one, (2) the Postscript, in which the problem is formulated: “to become a Christian” and (3) a religious one. But at the same time he emphasizes that the religious was present from the beginning, just as he in the especially religious period never fully forgot to write aesthetic works. rudelbach apparently had no sense for the fact that the problem for Kierkegaard was not about being a Christian but becoming a Christian.147 ibid. ibid. 143 ibid., p. 50. 144 ibid. 145 ibid., p. 51. 146 ibid., p. 52. 147 only Either/Or, which Kierkegaard in The Point of View regards as the first work in the authorship, can be claimed to express the “duplicity,” since it ends with the religious, the “ultimatum,” which is constituted by a Jutland pastor’s sermon, which has not yet been given. see rudelbach’s review in Evangelisk Ugeskrift, p. 53. 141 142

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

329

Rudelbach remarks that Kierkegaard overlooked that the fight that he carried out was a part of “the age’s Christian fight,” and that “he had many fellow fighters at his side.”148 it is certainly relevant to regard Kierkegaard’s efforts from a general point of view and to place it into a historical context, but in connection with an analysis of the authorship one must take into account that Kierkegaard demanded a “fight” on one’s own account and at one’s own risk. rudelbach could not accept Kierkegaard’s use of the indirect “method.”149 the claim to fight against “an illusion, a deception of the senses” he thinks is wrong, and claims that at Kierkegaard “is very mistaken here.”150 the indirect method is simply not in harmony with Christianity and the gospel. it is of course legitimate to discuss Kierkegaard’s method, but this should be done on its own premises, and rudelbach has no sense for the fact that Kierkegaard’s definition of “Christendom”—to call oneself Christian without being one—is a part of the background for the method. Rudelbach seems exclusively to regard Kierkegaard’s fight as directed against those, who, undisguised, fought against Christianity. as a result, rudelbach must necessarily regard Kierkegaard with a critical eye, but it means that the criticism misses the point. that Kierkegaard invokes “the single individual” as his category is completely distorted by rudelbach. in connection with the discussion of the circumstances surrounding the publication of Either/Or, Kierkegaard explains that he had to show himself publicly and, at the same time, work in a deeply concentrated fashion: “i had to exist and keep an existence in absolute isolation.”151 the expression “absolute isolation” rudelbach then interprets as if it were Kierkegaard’s ideal for human existence. this is wrong, and it does not become more correct when rudelbach claims that everything that has to do with society is rejected by Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard correctly distanced himself from the view that the “crowd” is supposed to have the status of argument in existential relation, but it did not mean that he forgot “sociality.”152 He merely pointed out that “the single individual” had to be a necessary presupposition for community, for the social, and for the congregation. it is an open question whether Kierkegaard’s corresponding criticism of rudelbach for having had an elitist view of Christianity is not in fact more accurate. when a later time has characterized Kierkegaard as a hyperindividualist, this is an extension of what rudelbach set forth here. what rudelbach calls Kierkegaard’s theory of the single individual, he designates as “a kind of ethical monism,”153 but to use the word “monism” in connection with a dialectical thinker like Kierkegaard is entirely misleading. when rudelbach claims that an ethical monism cannot be brought into harmony with the revelation and with the church, he can to a degree be right, but it is absurd to use this as a criticism of Kierkegaard. 148 149 150 151 152 153

ibid., p. 54. ibid. ibid., p. 55. SV1 Xiii, 545 / PV, 58. see, for example, SKS 20, 86, nB:118. see rudelbach’s review in Evangelisk Ugeskrift, p. 59.

Søren Jensen

330

rudelbach regards the attack on the Church as the logical but tragic consequence of Kierkegaard’s ethical monism. it ended in “a deep confusion.”154 “it is only depressing to see that such a highly gifted spirit has completely been able to deny his better self.”155 it is not only the criticism that The Moment is filled with, which rudelbach must “regret and complain about,” but also the fact that “the lumber for it has been cut in the author’s earlier writings.”156 in these rudelbach can point out oppositions and concepts, which, in Kierkegaard’s definition and use, depart from that of Christianity. rudelbach quotes without reservation from Either/Or, Works of Love, and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript and, in other words, does not respect the pseudonymity which Kierkegaard in his article from 1851 had asked him to do. against this background then, it is not surprising that rudelbach thinks that the authorship is full of contradictions, and that he, in his review, has given “a proof— of the strong fluctuations in the author’s writings,” and where often they “present a refutation of the opposed, mistaken statements.”157 with the consistency which Kierkegaard’s concepts have, despite the pseudonymous authors’ various positions, rudelbach’s review cannot be called “just and fair”158 as he himself claims. If Rudelbach really had written a book about Kierkegaard, it is difficult to imagine what value it would have had, and one thing is certain: Kierkegaard would have been less than enthused about it. His statement from 1851: “we shall never understand one another,”159 is actually confirmed by Rudelbach in his review. Translated by Jon Stewart

154 155 156 157 158 159

ibid., p. 62. ibid. ibid., p. 63. ibid., p. 65. ibid. SKS 24, 214, nB23:20 / JP 6, 6725.

Bibliography I. Rudelbach’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library Den evangeliske Kirkeforfatnings Oprindelse og Princip, dens Udartning og dens mulige Gjenreisning fornemmelig i Danmark. Et udførligt kirkeretligt og kirkehistorisk Votum for virkelig Religionsfrihed, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsen 1849 (ASKB 171). Om Psalme-Literaturen og Psalmebogs-Sagen, Historisk-kritiske Undersøgelser, 1. afdeling, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1854 (ASKB 193). Kirchenspiegel. Ein Andachtsbuch zur häusliche Erbauung an allen Sonn- und FestTagen, in einer Reihe dogmatisch-moralischer Vorträge über gewählte Abschnitte aus den Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, vol. 2, Pfingsten bis 25. Sonntag nach Trinitatis, erlangen: verlag von Heyder und zimmer 1850 (vol. 1, Advent bis Pfingsten, 1845) (ASKB 284). Kirkepostille over Evangelierne, vol. 1–2, Copenhagen: C.g. iversen 1852–54 (ASKB 285–293). “Bøn fra en luthersk menighed i Hertugdommet posen,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C. J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 2, columns 241–51 (ASKB 321–325). “evangelisk troes-skjold,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 3, no. 134, 1848, columns 473–83; vol. 3, no. 135, 1848, columns 489–500; vol. 3, no. 136, 1848, columns 505–19; vol. 3, nos. 137–8, 1848, columns 522–45; vol. 3, no. 140, 1848, columns 575–84; and vol. 3, no. 141, 1848, columns 587–600. “Bemærkninger over Hr. prof. Clausens ‘Kritik og Fremstilling af underbegrebet,’ ” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens møller, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 4, 1823, pp. 119–61 (ASKB 336–345). “Om en vis Modification i Hypothesen om en mundtlig Tradition, som Forklaringsgrund til de tre første evangeliers overenstemmelse,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 4, 1823, pp. 162–77. “specimina theologorum ex medio ævo ineditorum, quos in itinere per galliam germaniamque,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 6, 1824, pp. 283–315. De ethices principiis hucusque vulgo traditis, disquisito historico-philosophica, Copenhagen: Hartv. Frid. popp. 1822 (ASKB 750). Reformation, Lutherthum und Union. Eine historisch-dogmatische Apologie der Lutherischen Kirche und ihres Lehrbegriffs, leipzig: Bern. tauchnitz Jun. 1839 (ASKB 751). Om det borgerlige Ægteskab. Bidrag til en alsidig, upartisk Bedømmelse af denne Institution, nærmest fra Kirkens Standpunkt, Copenhagen: otto schwartz 1851 (ASKB 752).

332

Søren Jensen

Christelig Biographie, vol. 1, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1848 (only one volume was published) (ASKB 1958). Die Sache Schleswig-Holsteins, volksthümlich, historisch-politisch, staatsrechtlich und kirchlich erörtert. Nebst einer Apologie der Lehre und Praxis der evangelischlutherischen Kirche hinsichtlich des Gehorsams gegen die Obrigkeit, des Eides und der Fürbitte für die weltlichen Fürsten. In einem Sendschreiben an den hochwürdigen Herrn Dr. Claus Harms, stuttgart: liesching 1851 (ASKB 2030). (introduction to), Kempis, thomas a, Om Christi Efterfølgelse, fire Bøger, trans. and ed. by Jens albrecht leonhard Holm, 3rd ed., Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandels Forlag 1848 (ASKB 273). (ed.) [with nikolai Frederik severin grundtvig], Theologisk Maanedsskrift, vols. 1–13, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandling 1825–28 (ASKB 346–351). (trans. and ed.), Den rette uforandrede Augsburgske Troesbekjendelse med sammes, af Ph. Melanchthon forfattede, Apologie, Copenhagen: wahlske Boghandlings Forlag 1825 (ASKB 386). II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Rudelbach anonymous [review of] “Dr. A.G. Rudelbach og vor Tids kirkelige Bevægelser. En Bedømmelse af D. Pontopiddan,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r. th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 7, no. 364, 1852, column 636 (ASKB 321–325). —— [review of] “Om Sognebaandet og om Ordinationens Væsen og Betydning. En kirkehistorisk-kirkeretlig og dogmatisk Udersøgelse af dr. a.g. rudelbach,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 7, no. 351, 1852, columns 413–16. Fenger, th. “dr. a.g. rudelbach: Christelig Biographie eller Christi vidners liv og Kamp og død, fremstillet for christelige læsere af alle stænder,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 69, columns 268–70. grundtvig, n.F.s., “om Folkelighed og dr. rudelbach,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 3, no. 124, 1847, columns 313–23. l. H., “dr. rudelbach’s Forslag om den fremtidige ordning af vores kirkelige Forhold,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 211, 1849, columns 33–45. —— “Kirkepostille over evangelierne af dr. a. g. rudelbach. Første Bind. Fra Kirkeaarets Begyndelse til 6te søndag efter paasken 1853,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, no. 401, 1853, columns 381–4. Helveg, l., “om dr. rudelbach’s Breve,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 8, 1853, no. 424, columns 747–54. martensen, Hans lassen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849, p. 50, note (ASKB 653). —— Den danske Folkekirkes Forfatningsspørgsmaal, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1851, p. 62; p. 69; p. 70; pp. 83–4; p. 95 (ASKB 655). mynster, Jakob peter, Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: den gyldendal 1852–53 [vols. 4–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1855–57], vol. 2, p. 40; p. 43; p. 68; p. 72 (ASKB 358–363).

Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach: Kierkegaard’s Idea of an “Orthodox” Theologian

333

nielsen, rasmus, Forelæsningsparagrapher til Kirkehistoriens Philosophie. Et Schema for Tilhørere, Copenhagen: p.g. philipsens Forlag 1843, p. 65 (ASKB 698). zeuthen, ludvig, Humanitet betragtet fra et christeligt Standpunkt, med stadigt Hensyn til den nærværende Tid, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1846, pp. 86–8 (ASKB 915). III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Rudelbach ammundsen, valdemar, Søren Kierkegaards Ungdom. Hans Slægt og hans religiøse Udvikling. Copenhagen: g.e.C. gads Forlag 1912, p. 25; p. 47; pp. 61–2; p. 64; p. 79; p. 81. Cappelørn, niels Jørgen, gert posselt, and Bent rohde, Tekstspejle. Om Søren Kierkegaard som bogtilrettelægger, boggiver og bogsamler, esbjerg: rosendahls forlag 2002, p. 80. Holmgaard, otto, Peter Christian Kierkegaard. Grundtvigs Lærling, Copenhagen: rosenkilde og Bagger 1953, p. 18; p. 20; p. 22; p. 24; p. 37; p. 45; p. 58.

eggert Christopher tryde: a mediator of Christianity and a Representative of the Official Christendom Jon stewart

Eggert Christopher Tryde (1781–1860) is not a well-known figure to Kierkegaard scholars. He certainly cannot compare to figures of the stature of Mynster, Martensen or grundtvig with respect to the quality of his authorship. nonetheless he did play a significant role in the theological and scholarly discussions of the day. Kierkegaard knew tryde personally and was clearly exercised by him. in Kierkegaard circles, Tryde’s lone claim to fame is usually thought to be the fact that he officiated at Kierkegaard’s funeral in his capacity as pastor at the Church of our lady in Copenhagen. However, there is much more to be said about the significance of Tryde for Kierkegaard’s universe. I. Tryde’s Life and Works tryde was born on december 8, 1781 into a family of pastors. His father was Holger tryde (1740–1800), parish pastor for Fensmark and risløv Congregations in zealand and later for Birkerød in Jutland. as a boy, tryde attended the Borgerdyd school in Copenhagen beginning in 1799. He quickly and successfully went through the usual course of studies. He passed his qualifying examination in theology in 1804. thereafter he worked as an instructor at Christianis institute, also in Copenhagen, until 1807 when he received the parish of Fensmark and risløv that had previously been assigned to his father. this was followed by a series of positions as pastor in different parishes throughout the country. also in 1807 tryde married Christine dorothea Kongslev (1780–1839), the daughter of a professor at the sorø academy. in 1838 he received the prestigious position of pastor of the Church of our lady in Copenhagen. the move to the capital opened a number of opportunities for him, which led to a string of different positions. For instance, in 1839 he was made codirector of the danish Bible society. in 1841 he was also appointed as co-director of the pastoral seminary, where he taught practical theology to the up-and-coming pastors. tryde participated in various committees and commissions that discussed key issues regarding the reform of the danish Church. Beginning in 1839, in the midst of a highly charged controversy about the dissolution of parish ties and the freedom

336

Jon Stewart

of the clergy, Tryde was involved in an official committee to evaluate Bishop Jakob peter mynster’s (1775–1854) proposal for a new church ritual and altar book.1 in 1843, together with Hans lassen martensen (1808–84) and n.F.s. grundtvig (1783– 1872), he served on a committee appointed by Copenhagen’s Clerical Conference to explore the suggestions for modifying or replacing the official hymn book, which at the time was also a matter mired in controversy.2 He was also involved in the numerous controversies between the danish state Church and the various free church movements and other forces of reform in the late 1830s and 1840s. For example, Tryde took part in the Church’s conflict with the Baptists, where he played the role of mediator. according to the policy backed by mynster, these children were to be brought to the church by the police, if necessary, and forcibly baptized, against the protests of their parents. tryde argued that the children of the Baptists should be allowed to go unbaptized until they reached the age of confirmation, and he himself refused to baptize them by force or coercion.3 in the discussions surrounding the introduction of the danish Constitution, tryde became engaged politically in reforming the Church to make it more in accord with the new order of things. in this context he published a pamphlet with numbered paragraphs entitled Some Propositions for Closer Examination about the Reciprocal Relation of the Church and the State, with Some Accompanying Remarks.4 moreover, he was a member of a number of official committees, including the Church Commission, which shaped the nature of the danish church for years to come. tryde was promoted to royal Confessor and bishop in 1854. on sunday, November 18, 1855 he was, as noted, the official pastor at Kierkegaard’s funeral ceremony, a delicate and unenviable task. after the initial service in the Church of our lady, where Kierkegaard’s elder brother peter Christian Kierkegaard (1805–88) gave the eulogy, the service was continued at the graveside in assistens Cemetery. there Kierkegaard’s nephew Henrik lund (1825–89) interrupted the proceedings and, despite tryde’s protests, declared his solidarity with the deceased, rebuking what he regarded as an absurdity, namely, that the official state church, which Kierkegaard had been so zealous to criticize, was giving him a funeral under its auspices.5 this outspoken protest created a sensation and was the subject of much discussion both in private and in the newspapers in the days that followed. tryde, in

see Hal Koch and Bjørn Kornerup, Den Danske Kirkes Historie, vols. 1–8, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1950–66, vol. 6, pp. 296ff.; Jens rasmussen, J.P. Mynster, Sjællands Biskop 1834– 54. Kampen for en rummelig kirke. Forholdet til N.F.S. Grundtvig og Grundloven, odense: odense universitetsforlag 2000, pp. 169ff. 2 see Koch and Kornerup, Den Danske Kirkes Historie, vol. 6, p. 301; rasmussen, J.P. Mynster Sjællands Biskop 1834–54, p. 197. 3 see Koch and Kornerup, Den Danske Kirkes Historie, vol. 6, p. 305; rasmussen, J.P. Mynster Sjællands Biskop 1834–54, pp. 175–6. 4 eggert Christopher tryde, Nogle Sætninger til nærmere Overveielse om Kirkens og Statens gjensidige Forhold. Med nogle ledsagende Bemærkninger, Copenhagen: Bianco luno 1848. 5 see the accounts in Encounters with Kierkegaard: A Life as Seen by His Contemporaries, trans. and ed. by Bruce H. Kirmmse, princeton: princeton university press 1996, pp. 132ff. 1

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

337

his capacity as officiating pastor, was thus in a sense singled out as a spokesman for the “official Christendom.” after the episode of Kierkegaard’s funeral, tryde’s life was fairly uneventful. in 1857 he was awarded an honorary doctoral degree from the Faculty of theology of the university of Copenhagen. He died in 1860. By all accounts Tryde’s influence was due to his personal qualities rather than his scholarly works. as an administrator, an instructor, and a pastor, he touched the lives of many of the best-known figures of Golden Age Denmark. Perhaps most significant is that Tryde cannot be readily classified with regard to the one theological camp or the other: he was neither a grundtvigian, although he sympathized with some of grundtvig’s views, nor a rationalist, nor a Hegelian, nor a Kierkegaardian. He took part in many of the contemporary debates in a nonpartisan way. His contributions to these debates do not evidence any ideological agenda but rather a straightforward, thoughtful consideration of the matter at hand. the body of material that constitutes tryde’s corpus is respectable: however, most of it is not scholarly in the strict sense. He penned a handful of shorter pamphlets and monographs, a large number of articles in all of the major theological journals, and some reviews. in addition, he followed the contemporary practice of publishing several of his speeches and sermons. many of his writings concern key issues of ecclesial politics and can be seen as outgrowths of his work in the church administration. although none of tryde’s books was found in Kierkegaard’s private library at his death, nonetheless the latter subscribed to Jens møller’s (1779–1833) Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, which contains some articles by tryde.6 moreover, a sales receipt shows that Kierkegaard bought tryde’s Five Sermons on Some of Our Age’s Disputed Dogmas on september 25, 1846.7 somewhat surprisingly it seems not to have been tryde’s sermons or religious treatises that made the most profound impact on Kierkegaard. rather it was two book reviews, one of a philosophical text and one of a literary text, that arguably were the most significant. In addition to these texts, it seems to have been Tryde’s person and specifically his engagement in church politics that attracted Kierkegaard’s attention. Kierkegaard was reportedly seen on one of his famed dialogical walks with tryde,8 and through their conversations, Kierkegaard gained some insight into tryde’s work in the church, and this was then subject to critical scrutiny in his private journals. eggert Christopher tryde, “svar efter opfordring paa nogle spørgsmaale angaaende den augsburgske Confession og symbolerne. et Brev til professor sibbern,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens møller, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821–32, vol. 10, 1826, pp. 232–56 (ASKB 336–345); “nogle yttringer i anledning af de i syvende Hefte af Maanedsskriftet for Literatur indrykkede Bemærkninger om kirkelige Formularer, nærmest med Hensyn til den danske Kirkes ritual,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 17, 1830, pp. 28–66. 7 eggert Christopher tryde, Fem Prædikener over nogle af de i vor Tid anfægtede Troeslærdomme, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 106). see H.p. rohde, “om søren Kierkegaard som bogsamler. studier i hans efterladte papirer og bøger paa det Kongelige Bibliotek,” Fund og Forskning, vol. 8, 1961, p. 121. 8 SKS 21, 225, nB9:42 / JP 6, 6310. 6

338

Jon Stewart

the question is whether Kierkegaard regarded tryde as a representative of the official, that is, corrupt, Christendom, as he regarded, for example, Martensen or mynster, or if he had a more sympathetic disposition towards tryde despite his high-ranking position in the danish Church. i wish to argue that, while tryde did not represent the same kind of threat that Kierkegaard perceived in mynster and martensen, he was nonetheless the object of Kierkegaard’s disdain. For right or wrong, Kierkegaard regarded him as corrupt and hypocritical, the advocate of an accommodated conception of Christianity that is wholly at odds with the difficult demands set by what Kierkegaard calls New Testament Christianity. In his official capacity, Tryde was a good mediator of conflicts, but in Kierkegaard’s eyes this was not a positive quality; on the contrary, tryde’s disposition led, in his view, to a compromised and watered down version of Christianity. II. Tryde’s Review of Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the present age tryde reviewed a couple of Johan ludvig Heiberg’s (1791–1860) most important works. Heiberg, although primarily known as a theater poet, also played a profoundly influential role in introducing Hegel’s philosophy into Denmark in the 1830s and 1840s.9 tryde was a close associate of the celebrated Heiberg family, which can perhaps best be seen in Johanne luise Heiberg’s (1812–90) moving words about him in her memoirs: it is up to weightier voices than mine to judge what tryde was as a pastor for the many years he was in office. But the main thing in the exercise of his calling was that he had an unspeakable wealth of love. He attracted the young people, and he always had them in his house and home, where he received them like a friend and a father. Humble in disposition, he liked to listen to the young people’s conversation, and when he thought he sensed some intellectual gift, he was always ready with advice and assistance. many people found him all too accepting towards everything. But there are enough people who have not accepted anything.10

this relation of friendship plays an important role in tryde’s reviews, which appeared in the context of a larger discussion about Heiberg’s controversial works. while the tone of the debates was often rather acrimonious, tryde’s reviews are, by contrast, respectful and thoughtful, without necessarily being in agreement with Heiberg’s positions. in the spring of 1833 Heiberg published his On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age,11 which was ostensibly an invitation to a series of lectures on see Jon stewart, A History of Hegelianism in Golden Age Denmark, tome i, The Heiberg Period: 1824–1836, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2007 (Danish Golden Age Studies, vol. 3). 10 Johanne luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, vols. 1–4, 5th revised ed., by niels Birger wamberg, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1973–74, vol. 2, p. 15. 11 Johan ludvig Heiberg, Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1833 (ASKB 568). (english translation in Heiberg’s On the 9

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

339

philosophy and aesthetics. not enough people signed up for the course for Heiberg to carry it though, but there was no shortage of critical responses to it. in addition to reviews by Frederik ludvig zeuthen (1805–74)12 and mynster,13 tryde responded to Heiberg’s work with an extended essay.14 Heiberg’s treatise was highly provocative. He argues that that the present age is in a state of crisis due to the fact that people have become alienated from their own cultural points of orientation: art, religion, and philosophy. the result of this alienation is that people have ceased to believe in beauty, god, or the truth. what is needed now, he claims, is something that will restore these beliefs to their proper place and thus help the age out of its current crisis into a new period of happiness and stability. Heiberg claims that Hegel’s speculative philosophy is what will perform this function for the directionless age. many theologians, including mynster and tryde, were offended by Heiberg’s suggestion that Hegel’s philosophy was necessary to help religion back onto a stable footing. while most of Heiberg’s critics were willing to grant that a crisis existed, they were unanimous in disagreeing with the means by which he proposed to remedy it. tryde’s article, although published anonymously, is not straightforwardly polemical. on the contrary, he puts himself in a mediating role between Heiberg as author and the offended readers. He thus attempts to present each side to the other, so they can understand and appreciate each other’s positions better. the most interesting aspect of this review is tryde’s objections to Heiberg’s Hegelianism. unlike some of Heiberg’s other critics, tryde is not straightforwardly dismissive. on the contrary, within certain limits, he is sympathetic towards Hegel’s philosophy and Heiberg’s efforts on its behalf: We should even appreciate the fact that Prof. Heiberg has wholly affiliated himself with Hegel and his school; for under the aforementioned conditions, he can become an exceptional mouthpiece for this philosophy among us in denmark, and he is the only one of our few philosophical writers who has tried to create an inroad for it here. But regardless of whether one anticipates the further development of Hegelian philosophy and its constantly expanding influence on scholarship with hope or fear, it will obviously no longer do to ignore it.15

Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age and Other Texts, ed. and trans. by Jon stewart, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 2005 (Texts from Golden Age Denmark, vol. 1), pp. 85–1119 (in the following abbreviated as OSP).) 12 Frederik ludvig Bang zeuthen, “oplysninger til prof. J.l. Heibergs skrift: Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nærværende Tid,” Kjøbenhavnsposten, vol. 7, no. 76, april 18, 1833, pp. 301–2; no. 77, april 19, 1833, pp. 305–6. (OSP, pp. 121–30.) 13 Kts. [Jakob peter mynster], “om den religiøse overbeviisning,” Dansk Ugeskrift, vol. 3, nos. 76–7, 1833, pp. 241–58. (reprinted in mynster’s Blandede Skrivter, vols. 1–6, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1852–57, vol. 2, pp. 73–94.) (OSP, pp. 139–59.) 14 anonymous [eggert Christopher tryde], “om philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende tid. et indbydelses-skrift til en række af philosophiske Forelæsninger. af Johan Ludvig Heiberg. Kbhavn. 54 s. 8º,” Dansk Litteratur-Tidende for 1833, no. 41, pp. 649–60; no. 42, pp. 681–92; no. 43, pp. 697–704. (OSP, pp. 167–90.) 15 ibid., no. 41, p. 651. (OSP, p. 170.)

340

Jon Stewart

tryde is thus willing to recognize the importance of Hegel’s philosophy, acknowledging that it is an obligation for any educated person to have some familiarity with it. Moreover, Tryde believes that Heiberg has his finger on a real problem. The crisis of religion that Heiberg draws attention to in his treatise is a genuine sign of the times: Let us then just admit it: the sublime peace, the firm, calm rest in faith—the ordered central point for all thought and feeling moving in the soul—the force to edify in the good, to struggle against evil, which former generations found in their religious conviction, all this the present generation does not know, when we speak in general.16

tryde thus generally agrees with Heiberg that there is a crisis in religion that needs to be addressed. He grants that the faith of previous ages no longer has the same force as it once did. although he acknowledges the importance of Hegel’s thought, tryde is skeptical of Heiberg’s claim that it can resolve the current religious crisis. He is particularly critical of Heiberg’s argument that philosophy is the highest form of knowing and that it is thus philosophy that is needed to save art and religion from falling into disuse and contempt: But the author ascribes to philosophy a distinct superiority over religion, art and poetry, all three of which he places parallel to one another. He does not assume that the former has proceeded from the latter or has them as presupposition, but vice versa. therefore, the regeneration after a condition of ferment or dissolution cannot begin from religion, poetry or art, but must begin from philosophy.17

according to tryde, the present age needs religion, not philosophy, in order to resolve the crisis. He thus argues that religion will ground philosophy and not the other way around. His main argument to justify this claim is that religion works with a higher faculty of knowing than philosophy: But by thinking about the doctrines of religion, we should allow the religious ideas which emerge in these to become conscious for us, and realize that they are by no means incompatible with the rest of human knowledge, as they so often are alleged to be, but rather that the entire speculative knowledge of life and existence is in the most beautiful way absorbed in the theological knowledge of what is even higher.18

the key here is that tryde believes religious knowing is continuous with other forms of knowing, and on this point he is fully in agreement with Heiberg and the Hegelians. However, he refers to this as “theological knowledge of what is even higher,” which seems to imply that this special religious faculty occupies the apex of the tree of knowing. He claims that religion must resist the advances of philosophy and protect its place at the top of the hierarchy. 16 17 18

ibid., no. 42, p. 688. (OSP, p. 182.) ibid., no. 41, p. 655. (OSP, p. 173.) ibid., no. 42, p. 692. (OSP, p. 185.)

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

341

tryde then anticipates the obvious objection: if religious knowledge is continuous with philosophical knowledge, then how can he ultimately distinguish his position from Hegel? How can he justify the claim that religious knowing is higher than philosophical knowing? Hegel makes just the opposite claim by appealing to the distinction between representation (religion) and concept (philosophy). what is tryde’s argument for the inversion of this order? tryde writes: the reviewer is quite aware that, to professor Heiberg and every true Hegelian, this last statement will appear absurd and seem to disclose a misunderstanding of the entire basic idea of philosophy. so long as they hold to the standpoint of this thought, it must strike them as mad to want to use thought to raise oneself beyond the world of thought itself, beyond the absolute into what, for them, seems absolutely empty and lacking in content. Indeed we know very well the difficulty in which the theologians find themselves when they would like to raise religious life beyond feeling and into thought, i.e., not to fall so completely into the speculative logic which was so profoundly set forth by Hegel that religious thinking is completely taken captive by it and falls prey to the absolute idea’s own web which is interwoven throughout.19

on the one hand, there is the conception of religious faith based on feeling, which was advocated most famously by schleiermacher and later by mynster in his response to Heiberg’s treatise. By contrast, there is Hegel’s and Heiberg’s position, according to which faith is a matter of representation that reflects a deeper philosophical knowing based on necessary reason. tryde seems to want to locate his position somewhere between these two extremes. Faith and knowing are not radically distinct, but by the same token they are not identical. religion contains something that cannot be reduced to philosophical understanding. Heiberg, tryde argues, “is incorrect in demanding that we seek what gives the soul its peace and its rest...in the knowledge of its true essence, which philosophy provides. He is incorrect in not recognizing religion as more than a subordinate, more mediated form.”20 thus religion must resist being incorporated into philosophy as something secondary. it is, on the contrary, a different, higher form of cognition than philosophy. Tryde finds Heiberg’s statements about the status of religion ambiguous: does it contain the truth or is its truth somehow inferior to philosophical truth? He calls on Heiberg to explain this point. Heiberg wrote a brief article in which he tried to respond to the objections in tryde’s review and clarify his own position.21 the main issue is whether philosophy or religion should be given the highest place in the hierarchy of knowledge. Historically, this question was conceived as a dispute between knowledge and faith. However, tryde contends religion is also a matter of knowledge, thus collapsing the traditional dichotomy. Heiberg responds with a Hegelianian argument for the ibid., no. 43, pp. 697–8. (OSP, p. 185.) ibid., no. 43, p. 701. (OSP, p. 188.) 21 Johan ludvig Heiberg, “i anledning af recensionen over mit skrift: Om Philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende Tid. (Dansk Litt. Tid. no. 41–43),” Dansk Litteratur-Tidende, no. 46, 1833, pp. 765–80. (reprinted in Heiberg’s Prosaiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1861–62, vol. 1, pp. 437–52.). (english translation in OSP, pp. 193–203.) 19 20

342

Jon Stewart

all-encompassing nature of thought. By acknowledging that religion is a form of knowing continuous with the other forms of knowing, tryde had admitted that it is also continuous with philosophy. Heiberg argues: immediate and mediated knowledge indeed come into agreement in the fact that both are knowledge. thought, cognition, and knowledge must develop to their own essence, i.e., themselves. there is thus no higher sphere than that of philosophy, and it can only be by an arbitrary use of words or, so to speak, by a kind of slip of the tongue that the reviewer, in contradiction to all the rest of his system, places theology above philosophy. For what he calls “theology”—knowledge of higher things—is so wholly philosophy itself that the latter separated from the former would be only knowledge of what is finite and thus not philosophy.22

Heiberg thus takes tryde to be making a case for the priority of immediate knowing. His argument is simply that what lies in this immediate knowing merely needs to be developed further to its speculative truth. But in so far as both are forms or different stages of knowing, there is ultimately no fundamental difference. However, philosophy must be regarded as higher since it is conceptual and grasps the very form of necessary, speculative truth, in contrast to immediate knowing which relies on the contingencies of the senses. to Heiberg’s mind, it is thus a contradiction for tryde to claim, on the one hand, that religion treats the highest things and, on the other hand, that it operates with immediate knowing. the highest things are concerned with the highest necessary truths and not the changing realm of sense experience. Heiberg’s defense of philosophical knowing is somewhat reconciliatory. He tries to argue that philosophy can grasp the truths of religion in its own conceptual way without denying them. He then raises the question of what the religious believers find in religious faith that is “lacking in the speculative Idea.”23 He tries to make the case that the idea contains everything, including religious feeling and sentiment. these are, however, not regarded as individual feelings or sentiments, but pure concepts. By means of this transformation these feelings and sentiments are given a higher, enduing value. For this reason, he reaffirms, philosophy is higher than religion, while at the same time containing religious truths within itself. tryde responded to this with a brief article, which proved to be the last in the debate.24 Tryde takes up Heiberg’s question about what religious believers find missing in the speculative idea. Here he formulates a new description of the faculty of religion, which he believes to be higher than philosophy, namely, “the religious sense.”25 this is a faculty of thought or cognition and is continuous with other forms of cognition; it acts “in conjunction both with philosophical thinking...and with all

ibid., p. 770. (OSP, pp. 196–7.) ibid., p. 778. (OSP, p. 202.) 24 anonymous [eggert Christopher tryde], “svar fra anmelderen af professor Heibergs skrivt, ‘om philosophiens Betydning for den nuværende tid,’ paa Forfatterens erklæring i Litteraturtidenden no. 46,” Dansk Litteratur-Tidende, no. 49, 1833, pp. 820–8. (english translation in OSP, pp. 207–13.) 25 ibid., p. 821. (OSP, p. 207.) 22 23

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

343

the other activities of the soul.”26 despite this continuity, philosophical thinking and religious cognition must be kept separate by the individual believer. tryde’s main attack is focused on the question of content and form. while the speculative idea is purely formal, the key religious truths contain determinate content. along these lines, tryde gives a long list of key religious terms with their own content, which, he claims, are not present in the speculative idea: redemption, reconciliation, eternal life, and the like. Kierkegaard owned a copy of Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age,27 and it seems quite probable that he also followed the debate surrounding the treatise. although there is no documented evidence that he read tryde’s review, one can imagine that the young Kierkegaard, if he did read it, found in it an instructive piece about the most effective ways not to battle the pernicious influence of Hegelianism in religion. It is possible that he saw in both Mynster’s and tryde’s treatises an ill-considered attempt to defend religion in a way that in effect gave away the game before it ever got started. By claiming that religion was still a matter of knowing—for mynster, empirical knowing and for tryde, an indeterminate higher faculty—these thinkers played into the hands of the Hegelians. Hegel’s (and Heiberg’s) original claim was that art, religion and philosophy are all part of the same continuum of knowing. trydes grant this premise, but then nonetheless tries to argue for the fundamental difference of religion by appealing to some special faculty that is distinct from the forms of knowing in the other fields. This is not satisfying for Heiberg since the Hegelian system is supposed to be all-encompassing; thus, it includes all forms of knowing. the result is that the discussion is ultimately about where to place art and religion in the system, which, in the big picture, is a fairly small matter since the Hegelians have won the larger debate. one can imagine that this discussion was instructive for Kierkegaard since it showed him that if religion, or specifically Christianity, was to be defended, then more radical measures were needed. He would have to argue for the absolute difference between Christianity and all forms of knowing. He would have to insist on Christianity as something paradoxical and unutterable in order to keep it from being usurped by philosophy. when commentators today are struck by the radicality of Kierkegaard’s conception of Christianity, one must keep in mind discussions like this one, which preceded it. Kierkegaard did not reach his radical positions overnight. He was drawn to them by witnessing the ineffective defenses of Christianity by others, like tryde, who failed to take such a course. the failures of attempts like these pushed him gradually toward an extreme and uncompromising form of Christianity radically distinct from philosophy, science, and all forms of knowing. III. Tryde’s Review of Heiberg’s new poems this was not, however, tryde’s last brush with Heiberg’s Hegelian philosophy. in 1841 he published a book review of Heiberg’s New Poems in the Tidsskrift for 26 27

ibid., pp. 821–2 (OSP, p. 207.) see ASKB 568.

344

Jon Stewart

Litteratur og Kritik.28 this famous collection of four works was highly successful due primarily to the fourth and final poem, “A Soul after Death.”29 Here there can be no speculation about the importance of this critical discussion for Kierkegaard since we know that he owned a copy of Heiberg’s work, and, moreover, it can be documented that he also read tryde’s review. in his piece tryde is generally quite positively disposed towards Heiberg’s effort; in fact, it is a glowing review. although he is reviewing a poem rather than a philosophical treatise on philosophy and religion, many of the same issues are present in the new work. Kierkegaard must have been particularly irritated by tryde’s positive assessment of the religious dimension of Heiberg’s poems. in the debate surrounding On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age there was universal disapprobation and even outrage among theologians and clergy, but now tryde, a high-ranking member of the danish Church, was praising precisely this aspect of Heiberg’s recent poetic effort: It is not without significance that this collection of poems, although a great humoristic poem (“a soul after death”) constitutes its most important part, nevertheless begins and ends with poems (“divine service” and “protestantism [in nature]”) of a purely serious and religious content....the poet portrays the religious life which is fermenting in the present generation, and also tries to define the overflowing and exuberant feeling on its own, and to give it a firm foothold by designating the goal towards which everything in the grand development strives; the religious life for many people in our days has lost this foothold due to the fact that they have broken through the older forms in which people lived a kind of static life in the most recent previous generations.30

in what follows tryde even refers to Heiberg as “a representative of our age’s religiousness in general.”31 later in the review, he describes “a soul after death” as a profound account of “the Christian religious consciousness” that is presented with “the entire life and strength of poetic genius.”32 the tone is thus entirely different from that of his previous review. while tryde had previously agreed generally with Heiberg’s assessment of the religious crisis, now he seems wholeheartedly to have embraced it and, indeed, even to have adopted Heiberg’s own formulations in his description of it. moreover, tryde now seems to be much more amenable to Heiberg’s proposed solution to the crisis, while this was his main critical objection in his previous review. this apparent shift of position earned him Kierkegaard’s disdain, since in later journal entries Kierkegaard counts him, despite his earlier criticism of Hegelianism, among its proponents. moreover, this change in tryde’s view can be interpreted as a natural and inevitable 28 eggert Christopher tryde, “Nye Digte af J.l. Heiberg. Kbhvn., reitzels Forlag. 1841. 8. 249 s.,” Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, vol. 1, nos. 2–3, 1841, pp. 159–98. 29 Johan ludvig Heiberg, Nye Digte, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1841 (ASKB 1562). (reprinted in Poetiske Skrifter, vols. 1–11, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1862, vol. 10, pp. 163– 324.) 30 tryde, “Nye Digte af J.l. Heiberg. Kbhvn., reitzels Forlag. 1841. 8. 249 s.,” pp. 161–2. 31 ibid., p. 162. 32 ibid., pp. 174–5.

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

345

result of the fruitlessness of his former attempt to insist on a fundamental distinction between philosophy and religion, while at the same time granting the claim that both are forms of knowledge on a smooth continuum. in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript Kierkegaard has his pseudonymous author refer to tryde’s review. the context is a discussion of the notion of immortality. Johannes Climacus refers to the then current debates in the Hegelian schools about whether or not a concept of immortality can be found in Hegel’s philosophy. this was of course the object of poul martin møller’s (1794–1838) famous treatise from 1837, “thoughts on the possibility of proofs of Human immortality, with reference to the latest literature on the subject.”33 Climacus points out that the attempts to find an argument for immortality in Hegel’s conception of the eternity of spirit are misconceived since such a conception is not the immortality of the individual that is sought in inquiries of this kind. it is in this context that reference is made to Heiberg’s poem and tryde’s review of it: i have read professor Heiberg’s “a soul after death”—indeed, i have read it with dean tryde’s commentary. i wish i had not done so, because a poetic work gives aesthetic delight and does not require the ultimate dialectical exactitude commensurate with a learner who wants to organize his life according to such guidance. if a commentator forces me to look for something of that kind in the poem, he has not helped the poem. From the commentator i perhaps could hope to learn what i did not learn by reading the commentary—if dean tryde, in catechizing, would have mercy on me and show how a life-view is constructed from his profound paraphrasing presentation. all honor to dean Tryde! From this little piece of his it is possible to find a diversity of life-views—but i cannot make one out of it. alas, that is just the trouble; i need a single life-view, not more, since i am not well educated.34

Climacus seems in a sense to acknowledge the merits of “a soul after death” as a work of poetry. the weight of his criticism falls instead on tryde’s review, which does indeed treat “a soul after death” at some length. Climacus seems to think that tryde is too positive in his assessment of the piece. In particular, he wants to criticize Tryde for claiming that one can find in the poem a “life-view” that can be used as a concrete model for one’s own life. this refers to a statement that tryde makes at the beginning of his review: what brings us joy and moves us [sc. with Heiberg’s poems] is not individual beautiful thoughts, individual profound, heartfelt feelings the likes of which we also could find in other poets; it is not over any single side of life that the poet lets an elucidating light fall; but it is the higher, truer consciousness of all life and human existence, which is about to awaken in the present generation, that the poet here touches and awakens with his characteristic, steady and appropriate tact. every reader of these poems goes away from them with a more developed consciousness and a clearer view of the entirety of life poul martin møller, “tanker over muligheden af Beviser for menneskets udødelighed, med Hensyn til den nyeste derhen hørende literatur,” Maanedsskrift for Litteratur, vol. 17, 1837, pp. 1–72; pp. 422–53. (reprinted in møller’s Efterladte Skrifter, vols. 1–3, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1839–43, vol. 2, pp. 158–272 (ASKB 1574–1576)). 34 SKS 7, 159 / CUP1, 171–2. (Translation modified.) 33

346

Jon Stewart surrounding him. indeed, the author understands how to do this with such a light hand that it is certain that many people hardly notice how the most inward point in their selfconsciousness has been touched, from which an entirely new life-view arises, and that a source for many queries and doubts has opened in their inner being, which will not so easily be lost in the desert of thoughtlessness.35

Here Tryde ascribes a profound influence to Heiberg’s poems in the new collection. they are the source of an entirely new “life-view,” which questions traditional bourgeois values. indeed, this statement was almost certainly in line with Heiberg’s own intentions with “a soul after death” since he clearly intended to satirize, among other things, what he regarded as the typical bourgeois residents of Copenhagen with their philistine lack of appreciation for art and culture. the point of this satire was to show people that the hell that they believed to be located somewhere else in space and time is in fact the life that they themselves are living every day since they live in ignorance of truth and beauty. nonetheless, from Kierkegaard’s perspective, the claim that Heiberg’s work touches “the most inward point” of people’s minds and thus gives “a clearer view of the entirety of life” seems hopelessly exaggerated. in this section of the Postscript Climacus provides numerous examples of how an academic approach renders simple things difficult. Climacus seems to complain that Tryde does not help to simplify what it means to be immortal but obscures it by means of a scholarly treatment. many of Kierkegaard’s efforts as an author are dedicated to pointing out a sphere of religion, which is, as he sees it, deeply and necessarily individual and which he believes has been lost or forgotten. Clearly Heiberg’s poems have nothing to say about this. they do nothing to help uncover this, so to speak, lost Christianity. since this is the goal of much of Kierkegaard’s authorship, it is not surprising that this passage in tryde’s review attracted Kierkegaard’s attention for its claims about the influence and importance of Heiberg’s work. Kierkegaard refers to tryde again in a deleted draft to the Postscript in connection with professor of philosophy, rasmus nielsen (1809–84). in the text, Kierkegaard has Johannes Climacus critically discuss the concept of the world-historical.36 after this passage he originally intended to add the following footnote, which he later deleted: thus without a doubt prof. rasmus nielsen, in the role of a systematic per degn and Imprimatur, would find a place for Dean Tryde, who also is indeed said to know his business systematically and equally well both by reading and by rote, who is said to have the merit of bringing the system into families, and finally has the remarkable peculiarity tryde, “Nye Digte af J.l. Heiberg. Kbhvn., reitzels Forlag. 1841. 8. 249 s.,” p. 159. SKS 7, 143–4 / CUP1, 154: “if the world-historical is to amount to something and not to be an utterly vague category in which, despite the great amount one comes to know about China and monomotapa, the boundary between the individual and the world-historical nevertheless ultimately remains undecided...whether there is any boundary (or whether it speculatively runs together so that all are included and world history is the history of individuals), whether the boundary is accidental (relative merely to what one knows), whether the boundary perhaps is dialectically arbitrary, relative only to what the honored systematizing professor has read most recently or must include because of his literary in-law affinities—consequently, if the world-historical is to amount to something, it must be the history of the human race.” 35 36

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

347

by which he differs from actual Hegelians in assuming that world history has had its amusement park season extended so that it does not end before prof. rasmus nielsen. i do not say this to arrogate to myself the credit for having pointed out that the dean must be included in the world-historical process, but it appears to me that tryde as a systematician has for a long time been qualified to be mentioned with praise.37

Although this is a difficult passage to interpret, the reference to Tryde as different “from actual Hegelians” is interesting since it seems to imply that in Kierkegaard’s eyes, although tryde was not a Hegelian in the strict sense, he was nonetheless close to their position. this is apparently one of the conclusions that he drew from the positive review of New Poems. the tone of this passage seems to suggest that it is based not on a specific text but rather on anecdotal personal information that Kierkegaard had heard about tryde. III. Tryde in Journal Entries Surrounding practice in Christianity there are a couple of journal entries that refer to tryde in connection with Kierkegaard’s work Practice in Christianity, which appeared on september 25, 1850. in one entry presumably from the same year, Kierkegaard recounts an encounter with tryde. there he writes in the Journal NB21: “today i talked with tryde. He told me that it was too strong to say that Christianity had been abolished through ‘observation.’ He himself had stressed the subjective, and that was true also of all the more competent preachers.”38 this refers to section vi of part iii of Practice in Christianity,39 where Kierkegaard has anti-Climacus allude critically to mynster’s Observations on the Christian Dogmas.40 the upshot of the criticism is that to be a true Christian involves imitating Christ. this does not mean observation, that is, regarding something objectively from the outside; on the contrary, it involves a personal, subjective appropriation and action. tryde seems to have pointed out to Kierkegaard that he agreed with him on this point and that it was exaggerated to claim that the mistaken emphasis on the objective or on observation had “destroyed” Christianity. Kierkegaard continues in the same entry: o my god, how i have had to put up with this, that i was purely subjective, not objective, etc.—and now the same people claim that they also emphasize the subjective. Moreover, the point is that in defining the concept “preaching,” the sermon, one never gets further than a speech, talking about something; consequently one does not pay attention to existence at all. An officeholder—shackled in seventeen ways to infinitude and objectivity—achieves nothing, no matter how subjective he makes his talk. a nobody who preaches gratis on the street—even if he makes observations that are Pap. vi B 98.34 / CUP2, supplement, pp. 42–3. SKS 24, 57, nB21:88 / JP 6, 6687. 39 SKS 12, 227ff. / PC, 233ff. 40 Jakob peter mynster, Betragtninger over de christelige Troeslærdomme, vols. 1–2, Copenhagen: gyldendal 1837 (ASKB 254–255). 37 38

348

Jon Stewart ever so objective—remains a subjective and vivifying person; and one who is ever so subjective but is trapped by his position and the like in all possible secular considerations, his preaching remains essentially nothing but observation, for it is easy to see that he has made it impossible for himself to actualize even moderately that which he preaches about. But i have to say one thing about tryde, something splendid about him: that he said, that he did not deny, that he had been predisposed to be objective.41

this is one of many passages that can be found where Kierkegaard is critical of preaching. Kierkegaard thus seems anxious to point out a misunderstanding in the interpretation of his notion of the objective approach to Christianity. Here he clarifies further what he said via his pseudonym in the aforementioned passage from Practice in Christianity. Finally, on the one hand, Kierkegaard seems implicitly to criticize Tryde for hypocrisy since the latter has an official position and yet claims to have pointed out the importance of the subjective side; on the other hand, tryde seems to be lauded for his honesty in acknowledging that he has “been predisposed to be objective.” this journal entry seems clearly to be based solely on a conversation that the two men had and not on any text from tryde’s hand. also in connection with Practice in Christianity, there is a draft, dated december 18, 1850, of an unpublished article in Kierkegaard’s journals and papers. in response to a review of the work, Kierkegaard explains different ways of reading his text: “it would be dear to me if somebody were to read this book in such a way that it helped him understand how wrong he was before god, and it would be doubly dear to me if many individuals would read it thus.”42 then he comes to mention tryde as follows: if by contrast it would occur to anyone to read this book in order to be vindicated against prof. martensen, or perhaps in order to be vindicated against the man whom i have always admired and not least of all in these more recent times, zealand’s right reverend Bishop, or against the archdeacon tryde, or against prof. nielsen, or against pastor markmann, or, or...—indeed, just so i do not forget anyone—in order to be vindicated against me, for my existence proves that i, in the understanding of the ideal, am no true Christian; for one can just as well read this book in this way; indeed, i myself have read it thus, then he is in every respect mistaken and demonstrates a sorrowfully small degree of thoughtfulness and a thought-evoking large degree of thoughtlessness or mental absence.43

while tryde is mentioned along with some of Kierkegaard’s other usual targets of critique, it is difficult to see this as a passage critical of Tryde. The point is precisely not to use Practice in Christianity as a polemical support for one’s position against the figures named; instead, the point is for one to use it for reflection in the quiet of one’s own mind about what it means to be a true Christian and to be sinful.

41 42 43

SKS 24, 57–8, nB21:88 / JP 6, 6687. Pap. X–5 B 111, pp. 303–4. Pap. X–5 B 111, p. 304.

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

349

there is another reference to tryde in a long journal entry from 1850 concerned primarily with martensen’s Dogmatic Elucidations,44 which was a response to criticisms raised against his Christian Dogmatics.45 this work provides an occasion for Kierkegaard to look back on the reception of Hegel’s philosophy (referred to as “the system”) in denmark over the previous two decades. Here he refers to tryde as follows: “the system” in denmark and the pseudonyms essentially belong together. do you recall...it was “the system.” yes, there was a matchless movement and excitement over the system then, and prof. m.[artensen], the profound genius, who praised it, and professor Heiberg, who also praised it, and stilling and nielsen and tryde and god knows who else—yes, there was hardly anyone in the whole kingdom, or at least in the whole capital, who in one way or another was not related to the system in suspenseful expectation. it was the system. if anyone desires a true picture of the situation at that time, pictures from life, then read one or two of the pseudonyms, who have preserved this for history. as stated: it was the system.46

once again tryde is associated with the Hegelians. this is presumably a reference to tryde’s positive review of New Poems. it seems that tryde has made a long migration in Kierkegaard’s eyes from being a critic of Heiberg and the Hegelians in his first review, and then to becoming somewhat close to their position but not belonging to “actual Hegelians,”47 and now finally he is placed alongside the Hegelians on equal footing. IV. Journal Entries Referring to Tryde’s Work in the Church there are a handful of journal entries from the years 1849–51 where tryde makes an appearance. some of these are fairly trivial. For example, in an entry from 1849 Kierkegaard recounts his encounters with the danish King Christian viii. on one such occasion the Queen entered, and Kierkegaard recounts, “the Queen said that she recognized me, for she once had seen me on the embankment (where i ran off and left tryde high and dry).”48 this presumably refers to one of Kierkegaard’s philosophical walks along the city ramparts. on this occasion tryde seems to have been his interlocutor, but not much more information can be gleaned from this somewhat cryptic aside. in another entry from 1849, Kierkegaard mentions a somewhat more substantial anecdote in which tryde plays a role. in the Journal NB12, he writes: Just take that inoffensive fellow: tryde. He ordains Kofoed-Hansen and, touched, declaims that in these times the lord’s servants must especially consider that it is a Hans lassen martensen, Dogmatiske Oplysninger. Et Leilighedsskrift, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1850 (ASKB 654). 45 Hans lassen martensen, Den christelige Dogmatik, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1849 (ASKB 653). 46 Pap. X–6 B 137 / JP 6, 6636. 47 Pap. vi B 98.34 / CUP2, 42–3. (Quoted in full above.) 48 SKS 21, 225, nB9:42 / JP 6, 6310. 44

350

Jon Stewart question of one’s life. yes, indeed, i say thank-you....it is notorious that Kofoed-Hansen had submitted an application to be allowed to resign, and why? Because the position was a few hundred thalers less than he thought. and tryde knows this. i raise no objection against Kofoed-Hansen; he is not the one who is speaking in such loud tones, but tryde. How can this not help but demoralize the entire communion.49

Here reference is made to Hans peter Kofoed-Hansen (1813–93) who was pastor at the savior’s Church from 1849 to 1850. the point of the story is clearly to highlight what Kierkegaard perceives as the hypocrisy of tryde, namely, that tryde’s soft, diplomatic and sentimental talk about the importance of serving as a pastor is at odds with the truth that he also knows about Kofoed-Hansen: that is, that he resigned because the pay was bad. in a journal entry from 1851 Kierkegaard refers to tryde’s work in the various committees regarding the political reform of the danish Church in the wake of the new danish Constitution. He writes in the Journal NB22: But religiousness disappeared. the newspapers and public life in general did everything to sweep everyone into political interests—and the clergy never thought of forming or were able to form an opposition, not in the manner of Tryde, by flirting with politics and taking part in discussions, no, but by developing the interest of the religious, which is political indifference.50

this passage is often taken as an expression of Kierkegaard’s lack of interest in politics. He is clearly critical of Tryde’s “flirting” with politics, which is presumably a reference to tryde’s role in the political reforms that were being discussed at all different levels of the government and the ecclesial authorities. Kierkegaard’s position is that politics and Christianity should be clearly and cleanly separated. any overlap or approach of the two would clearly amount to a corruption of Christianity. when one engages in politics in the way tryde has done, then religiousness or Christianity disappears. in a journal entry from 1851 Kierkegaard refers in passing to tryde in the context of a renewed criticism of those who make Christianity into an objective doctrine. However, tryde is not the object of this criticism. Kierkegaard writes: suppose now (archdeacon tryde told me of just such an instance of a criminal out in the country) that a criminal has stood and told and out-and-out lie, and the interrogator knows very well that it is a lie and says to him: “now tell the truth.” He answers: “i have told the truth.” “will you shake hands on your having spoken the truth?” “no, that i will not.” Curious! the criminal makes a clear distinction between the personal and the impersonal, the objective, this, so to speak, “in my official capacity.” If the interrogator were to say to him: “do you dare swear to that?” he would no doubt answer: “yes.” if the interrogator were to say, “do you dare shake hands on that” –“no, that i will not do.” For to the criminal this is a personal act.51

49 50 51

SKS 22, 256–7, nB12:185. SKS 24, 167, nB22:124 / JP 4, 4193. SKS 24, 402–3, nB24:127 / JP 4, 4565.

Eggert Christopher Tryde: A Mediator of Christianity

351

Here tryde seems to have suggested a new example for Kierkegaard to use to illustrate the distinction between the subjective and the objective. this is anecdotal information clearly based on a discussion between the two men. it might well be that this was a part of the aforementioned discussion about Practice in Christianity, where Kierkegaard, disturbed by tryde’s misunderstanding, felt obliged to clarify the distinction once again. V. Tryde and the Attack on the Church tryde was also implicated, albeit it in a very minor way, in Kierkegaard’s attack on the Church. in an article that appeared in Fædrelandet on January 29, 1855, entitled “two new truth-witnesses,”52 Kierkegaard returns to his criticism of the formulation of “witness to the truth” that began the controversy when martensen used this epithet to describe his predecessor mynster. Kierkegaard was angered by martensen’s continued use of this term, despite his protests: “it was the language usage, to call witnesses, truth-witnesses what we understand by pastors, deans and bishops—it was the language usage i protested against because it is blasphemous, sacrilegious, but Bishop martensen obstinately persists in it, as is evident in his ordination address, which he incessantly interlards with ‘witnessing, being a witness, truth-witness,’ etc.”53 a footnote criticizes tryde for his perceived complicity: “the addresses given on this occasion have now been published: diocesan dean tryde’s introduction, a mere nothing, distinguishes itself by a footnote, as if it were something: ‘the author is prompted to explain that nothing has been left out—nothing changed.’ ”54 this refers to the publication, in the form of a 33-page pamphlet, of martensen’s address on occasion of the consecration of Jørgen Hjorth lautrup (1798–1856) and Hardenach otto Conrad laub (1805–82) as bishops.55 the ceremony took place in the Church of our lady on december 26, 1854. Kierkegaard’s anger was provoked by the fact that martensen used as his text acts 1:8, where Jesus refers to his disciples as “witnesses.” this is clearly the main object of Kierkegaard’s criticism for the reasons noted. The critical allusion to Tryde refers to his five-page introduction to the publication. on the intermediate title page for tryde’s text, as a kind of footnote, there appear the words that Kierkegaard quotes, where Tryde declares that he has neither modified nor omitted anything from his speech. Here tryde is referred to rather disdainfully and regarded as making himself complicit in martensen’s guilt. Kierkegaard clearly perceived martensen’s renewed remarks as witnesses to Christianity as a provocation. in his eyes, tryde seems to have demonstrated a lack of character by remaining silent on this in his introduction since he must have known that martensen’s words were controversial in the then current environment. tryde did, however, ultimately Kierkegaard, “to nye sandhedsvidner,” Fædrelandet, no. 24, January 29, 1855. SV1 Xiv, 32 / M, 25. 54 SV1 Xiv, 32, note / M, 25, note. 55 Bispevielse i Frue Kirke paa anden Juledag, den 26de December 1854, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1855. 52 53

352

Jon Stewart

escape Kierkegaard’s further wrath and is not mentioned in the attacks that appeared in The Moment. when one returns to the scandalous episode caused by Henrik lund at Kierkegaard’s grave, it seems that the spirit of his protest was in fact true to Kierkegaard’s own views of official Christendom, at least at the end. It is a secondary question whether it was fair that tryde had to bear the brunt of this personally. From the odd references and journal entries discussed here, it seems fair to conclude that while tryde was by no means the main object of Kierkegaard’s attacks, he was in his eyes part and parcel of the general problem of the state Church pretending to represent Christian faith. However, this was a view that Kierkegaard arrived at after some time. Just as Kierkegaard’s views of many people, for example, Heiberg, martensen, and mynster, began with some enthusiasm and ended with bitterness and conflict, so also his relation to Tryde seems to have followed much the same pattern, without, however, reaching the limits of either emotional extreme. it will be recalled that in her memoirs, Johanne luise Heiberg recounts “many people found [tryde] all too accepting towards everything.”56 this was doubtless a quality that made tryde a good administrator and a good intermediary in the many controversies that faced the danish Church in the 1830s and 1840s. unlike others, for example mynster, he was not so ideologically invested in his own views and, further, was able to understand and appreciate the views of those he disagreed with. this quality is clearly visible in his book review of Heiberg’s On the Significance of Philosophy for the Present Age, where he explicitly takes on the role of a negotiator or intermediary, who can help each side to understand the position of the other better. However, precisely this quality that was a virtue in one context is a vice in another. Kierkegaard regarded tryde as someone who was too willing to compromise on what were in the end the absolute demands of Christianity. He thus came to look upon him as a hypocrite and a spokesman for a watered down version of Christian faith. tryde’s attempts to negotiate reforms in the danish Church at a time of great social and political change are dismissed as “flirting” with politics and are regarded by Kierkegaard as in effect destroying Christianity. Kierkegaard learned from tryde that it is useless to attempt to formulate some middle-of-the-road view when it comes to Christianity. He saw that tryde’s attempt to use this strategy to resist the forces of Hegelianism had failed utterly since his middle-of-the-road position was simply usurped into the Hegelian system. if Christianity was to be defended from these encroachments and threats by science, philosophy or objective thinking, radical measures were needed. thus, Kierkegaard developed his radical positions in order to articulate what he regarded as a genuine picture of Christianity. in his view, anything less was doomed to failure. thus, tryde can be seen as a figure who helped to make Kierkegaard the radical, even at times shocking, thinker that he was, and this radicality is a dimension of his thought that we can ill afford to forget.

56

above.)

Johanne luise Heiberg, Et liv genoplevet i erindringen, vol. 2, p. 15. (Quoted in full

Bibliography I. Tryde’s Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library “om det kirkelige samfunds væsen,” Dansk Kirketidende, vols. 1–8, ed. by C.J. Brandt and r.th. Fenger, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1845–53, vol. 1, no. 18, 1846, columns 281–93 (ASKB 321–325). “svar efter opfordring paa nogle spørgsmaale angaaende den augsburgske Confession og symbolerne. et Brev til professor sibbern,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vols. 1–20, ed. by Jens møller, Copenhagen: andreas seidelin 1821– 32, vol. 10, 1826, pp. 232–56 (ASKB 336–345). “nogle yttringer i anledning af de i syvende Hefte af Maanedsskriftet for Literatur indrykkede Bemærkninger om kirkelige Formularer, nærmest med Hensyn til den danske Kirkes ritual,” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 17, 1830, pp. 28–66. Fem Prædikener over nogle af de i vor Tid anfægtede Troeslærdomme, Copenhagen: C.a. reitzel 1846 (ASKB u 106). the minutes of speeches made by e.C. tryde: —— “roskilde Convent. (mødet den 12te october 1848),” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 170, 1848 [for the minutes of e.C. tryde’s speech], see columns 246–7. —— “roeskilde præsteconvent holdt sit efteraarsmøde i ringsted torsdagen den 30te october 1849,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, no. 217, 1849 [for the minutes of e.C. tryde’s speech], see columns 139–50. —— “roeskilde præstekonvent (møde i roeskilde den 4de Juli 1850),” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 5, nos. 253–4, 1850 [for the minutes of e.C. tryde’s speech], see columns 740–7. II. Works in the auction Catalogue of Kierkegaard’s Library that Discuss Tryde anonymous, [review of] “e. tryde: Fem Prædikener over nogle af vor Troes Hovedlærdomme,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 94, 1847, columns 667–8. —— [review of] “Nogle Sætninger til nærmere Overveielse om Kirkens og Statens gjensidige Forhold, med nogle ledsagende Bemærkninger,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 4, no. 175, 1849, columns 291–3. Fenger, th., [review of] “e. tryde, Fem Prædikener over nogle af de i vor Tid anfægtede Troeslærdomme,” Dansk Kirketidende, vol. 2, no. 56, 1846, columns 63–4. Forfatteren af de liturgiske Bemærkninger i Maanedsskift for Litteratur, “et par ord i anledning af Hr. provst trydes yttringer om en revision af vore kirkelige Formularer (Nyt. theol. Bibl. 17de Bd. s. 28–66),” Nyt theologisk Bibliothek, vol. 18, 1830, pp. 301–21.

354

Jon Stewart

III. Secondary Literature on Kierkegaard’s Relation to Tryde söderquist, K. Brian, “Kierkegaard’s Contribution to the danish discussion of ‘irony,’ ” in Kierkegaard and His Contemporaries: The Culture of Golden Age Denmark, ed. by Jon stewart, new york and Berlin: walter de gruyter 2003 (Kierkegaard Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10), pp. 78–105. stewart, Jon, Kierkegaard’s Relations to Hegel Reconsidered, Cambridge and new york: Cambridge university press 2003, p. 93; pp. 477–8; p. 481. tjønneland, eivind, Ironie als Symptom. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Søren Kierkegaards Über den Begriff der Ironie, Frankfurt am main: peter lang 2004 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik, vol. 54), see pp. 280–8.

index of persons

abraham, 77, 78, 82, 90, 92, 185, 242. adam, 11. adler, adolph peter (1812–69), danish philosopher and theologian, 1–22, 162–8 passim, 181, 182, 244. aeschylus, 160. andersen, Hans Christian (1805–75), danish poet, novelist and writer of fairy tales, 30, 162. andersen, Johannes oskar (1866–1959), danish theologian, 254. arildsen, skat, 254. aristophanes, 174. augustine, 271. Baggesen, Jens (1764–1826), danish poet, 213, 305. Balle, nicolai edinger (1744–1816), danish bishop, 23–39. Balslev, Carl Frederik (1805–95), danish bishop, 28. Barfod, Frederik (1811–96), danish historian, 161. Barfod, Hans peter (1834–92), danish jurist and editor, 1, 206. Barth, Karl (1886–1968), 255–7 passim. Bastholm, Christian (1740–1819), danish court preacher, 25, 26. Baudoin, Jean-Baptiste (1831–75), French Catholic priest, 53. Baur, Ferdinand Christian (1792–1860), german theologian, 67. Bernard, Bernard (1821–95), French Catholic priest, 53. Birkedal, vilhelm (1809–92), danish pastor, 196, 204, 205.

Bjørnson, Bjørnstjerne (1832–1910), norwegian author, 178. Boesen, emil (1812–79), danish clergyman, 198, 298. Boisen, eline Birgitte (1813–71), danish author, 191, 192, 206. Boisen, Frederik engelhart (1808–82), danish pastor, 311. Boisen, peter outzen (1762–1831), danish bishop, 191. Bora, Katharina von (1499–1552), german nun, wife of martin luther, 315. Bornemann, Johan alfred (1813–90), danish theologian, 195. Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne (1627–1704), French Catholic theologian, 314, 315. Brammer, gerhard peter (1801–84), danish bishop, 289, 298, 299. Brandes, georg (1842–1927), danish author and literary critic, 183, 184. Brandt, Hermann, 255. Brøchner, Hans (1820–75), danish philosopher, 12, 44, 45, 233. Brorson, Hans adolph (1694–1764), danish pietistic hymnist, 29. Bukdahl, Jørgen, 29. Bukdahl, Jørgen K. (1936–79), 196. Calvin, John (1509–64), French protestant theologian, 173. Cambyses, 45. Caroline amalie, queen of denmark (queen of Christian viii) (1796–1881), 104. Chateaubriand, vicomte François rené de (1768–1848), French writer and statesman, 38.

356

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

Christ, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 34, 52, 54–6, 64–70 passim, 76–80 passim, 84, 91, 100, 108–12 passim, 117, 121, 125, 130, 163, 169, 176, 183, 190, 196, 197, 202, 219, 223, 233, 240, 269, 272, 279–81, 293, 297, 315, 322, 323, 351. Christensen, peter vilhelm (1819–63), Kierkegaard’s secretary, 71, 72. Christian vi (1699–1746), King of denmark from 1830–46, 24. Christian viii (1786–1848), King of denmark from 1839–48, 51, 104, 155, 309, 310, 349. Christian iX (1818–1906), King of denmark from 1863–1906, 205. Chrysostom, 271. Clausen, Henrik nicolai (1793–1877), danish theologian and politician, 6, 7, 41–50 passim, 61, 99–102 passim, 127, 192, 193, 211, 212, 306–10 passim. dante, alighieri (1265–1321), italian poet, 241, 244. delbrück, Ferdinand (1772–1848), german philosopher, 223. descartes, rené (1596–1650), French philosopher, 240, 242. ekdahl, nils Johan (1799–1870), swedish freethinking pastor, 53. eiríksson, magnús (1806–81), icelandic theologian, 49–94. eve, 11. ewald, Johannes (1743–81), danish poet, 305. Faber, Jørgen Christian theodor (1824–86), danish author, 53. Faber, nicolai (1789–1848), danish bishop, 55. Faust, 160, 230, 232, 238, 258. Feuerbach, ludwig (1804–72), german philosopher, 186.

Fibiger, Johannes Henrik tauber (1821–97), danish poet and pastor, 168. Fichte, Johann gottlieb (1762–1814), german philosopher, 7, 233. Flor, Christian (1792–1875), danish pastor and educationalist, 155. Frederik vi (1768–1839), King of denmark from 1808–39, 104. Frederik vii (1808–63), King of denmark from 1848–63, 52, 300. Frijs-Frijsenborg, C.e. (1817–96), danish minister, 205. girard, rené, 250. goldschmidt, meïr aaron (1819–87), danish author, 327. gozzi, Carlo (1720–1806), italian author, 290. grane, leif (1928–2000), danish professor of theology, 193, 255. grundtvig, nicolai Frederik severin (1783– 1872), danish poet and theologian, 42, 45, 50, 97–152, 153–5 passim, 159, 173–7 passim, 180–7 passim, 192–8 passim, 201, 204, 211–26 passim, 267, 289, 291, 303–13 passim, 315, 319, 336, 337. guericke, Heinrich ernst Ferdinand (1803– 78), german protestant theologian, 309. gyllembourg-ehrensvärd, thomasine Christine (1773–1856), danish author, 291. Hammerich, Frederik (1809–77), danish pastor, 154, 161. Hansen, aleth (1817–89), danish pastor and minister, 205. Hegel, georg wilhelm Friedrich (1770– 1831), german philosopher, 1–19 passim, 32, 33, 73, 119, 123, 124, 163, 167, 170, 171, 173, 187, 191, 229, 231, 233, 237–46 passim, 254–7 passim, 275, 291, 337–49 passim.

Index of Persons Heiberg, Johan ludvig (1791–1860), danish poet, playwright and philosopher, 6, 46, 87, 128, 159, 170, 230–3, 237–46 passim, 257, 290, 292, 305, 338–46 passim, 349. Heiberg, Johanne luise, born pätges (1812–90), danish actress, 290, 291, 338, 352. Heiberg, peter andreas (1758–1841), danish author, 1. Helveg, Hans Frederik (1816–1901), danish pastor and theologian, 153–85, 219. Helveg, ludvig (1818–83), danish pastor and church historian, 184. Hemmingsen, niels (1513–1600), danish theologian, 291. Hengstenberg, ernst wilhelm (1802–69), german protestant theologian, 308. Høegh-guldberg, ove (1731–1808), danish statesman, 25. Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von (1810–77), german protestant theologian, 156. Holberg, ludvig (1684–1754), danishnorwegian dramatist and historian, 24. Holm, Jens albrecht leonhard (1799–1861), danish pastor, 306. Horn, robert leslie, 255. Horrebow, otto (1769–1823), danish author, 25, 28. ibsen, Henrik (1828–1906), norwegian playwright, 178, 179. irenaeus, 234. Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich (1743–1819), german philosopher, 177. Jensen, Christian (1873–1949), danish pastor, 2. Jesus, see “Christ.” Job, 32, 185. John the Baptist, 12, 158.

357

Kalkar, Christian (1803–86), danish pastor, 155. Kant, immanuel (1724–1804), german philosopher, 28, 41, 231. Kierkegaard, michael pedersen (1756– 1838), søren Kierkegaard’s father, 189, 190, 307. Kierkegaard, peter Christian (1805–88), danish theologian (the brother of søren Kierkegaard), 12, 30, 87, 95, 102, 103, 109, 113, 128, 132, 133, 189–209, 220, 221, 240, 248, 307, 311, 312, 327, 336. Kierkegaard, søren aabye (1813–1855), The Battle between the Old and the New Soap-Cellars (ca. 1837), 239. From the Papers of One Still Living (1838), 30, 162. The Concept of Irony (1841), 170–2, 198, 239. Either/Or (1843), 33–8 passim, 45, 177, 241, 329, 330. Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est (ca. 1842–43), 240. Repetition (1843), 32, 33, 241. Two Edifying Discourses (1843), 13, Fear and Trembling (1843), 58, 76–84 passim, 90, 91, 160, 241. Philosophical Fragments (1844), 8, 19, 58, 121, 130, 199, 223, 224, 242, 243, 245, 272, 275–8, 282. The Concept of Anxiety (1844), 8, 9, 11, 244. Four Edifying Discourses (1844), 272–5. Prefaces (1844), 31–3, 244, 270–5, 282. Stages on Life’s Way (1845), 32, 33, 71, 116, 245. Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), 19, 45, 58, 62, 64, 71–9 passim, 82–91 passim, 115, 117–22 passim, 124–6, 129, 158–62 passim, 199, 223–6, 245, 275, 328, 330, 345, 346.

358

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

A Literary Review of Two Ages (1846), 37, 166. The Book on Adler (1846–47), 1–22, 162–6, 182. Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, 162. Works of Love (1847), 69, 282, 330. Christian Discourses (1848), 282, 297. The Point of View for My Work as an Author (ca. 1848), 9, 37, 182, 203, 327–30. Three Discourses at the Communion on Fridays (1849), 46. The Sickness unto Death (1849), 172, 250, 278, 282. Two Ethical-Religious Essays (1849), 1, 15, 17, 18, 294. Practice in Christianity (1850), 46, 130, 172, 250, 278–82, 294, 295, 297, 313, 347, 348, 351. On My Work as an Author (1851), 9, 15. Judge for Yourself (1851–52, published posthumously in 1876), 203. The Moment (1855), 87, 131, 132, 167, 171, 177, 184, 203, 252, 298, 301, 320, 330, 351. This Must Be Said; So Let It Be Said (1855), 294. What Christ Judges of Official Christianity (1855), 294. Journals, notebooks, Nachlaß, 5, 13, 29, 37, 45, 49, 72, 81, 88–92 passim, 112, 116,-21 passim, 126–32 passim, 155–8 passim, 163, 164, 181–6, 201, 237, 241–9 passim, 252, 253, 269, 270, 273, 279, 292–7 passim, 311, 325–7 passim, 337, 344, 347–50 passim, Kingo, thomas (1634–1703), danish poet, 27–9, 129. Kirmmse, Bruce H., 255. Knudsen, Knud lausten (1806–66), danish estate owner, 218. Koch, peter Christian (1807–80), danish editor, 168.

Kofoed-Hansen, Hans peter (1813–93), danish pastor and author, 168, 271–5 passim, 349, 350. Kold, Christen (1816–70), danish educationalist, 218. Kuhr, victor, 1. laub, Hardenach otto Conrad (1805–82), danish bishop, 351. lausten, martin schwarz, 25. lautrup, Jørgen Hjorth (1798–1856), danish bishop, 351. lazarus, 299. lemming, Hans sørensen (1707–88), danish pietist pastor, 29. lenau, nicolaus, see “strehlenau, niembsch von.” lessing, gotthold ephraim (1729–81), german writer and philosopher, 119, 120, 159, 223, 224. liebenberg, Frederik ludvig (1810–94), danish littérateur, 2. lind, peter engel (1814–1903), danish bishop, 204. lindberg, elise (1832–1913), danish educationalist and author, 221. lindberg, Jacob Christian (1797–1857), danish protestant theologian and philologist, 101, 102, 114, 115, 121, 122, 193, 211–28, 303–6 passim. lindberg, niels (1758–1830), danish chaplain, 212, 221. lund, Henrik (1825–89), søren Kierkegaard’s nephew, 203, 336, 351. lund, Henrik Ferdinand (1803–75), danish counselor, Kierkegaard’s brother-inlaw, 203. luther, martin (1483–1546), german religious reformer, 105, 116, 173, 214, 234, 247, 271, 315–19 passim. marheineke, philipp (1780–1846), german theologian, 191, 233.

Index of Persons martensen, Hans lassen (1808–84), danish theologian, 2, 3, 6, 50–7 passim, 62–6 passim, 71–5 passim, 86, 88, 89, 92, 128, 172, 186, 195, 199–204 passim, 229–66, 269, 275–8 passim, 289–92 passim, 297–301 passim, 327, 335–8 passim, 348–52 passim. martensen, Josepha (1852–1924), daughter of Hans lassen martensen, 254, 270, 295. melsteð, sigurður (1819–95), icelandic theologian, 53. mephistopheles, 241. møller, Conrad malthe (1771–1834), 25. møller, Jens (1779–1833), danish theologian and historian, 190, 213, 337. møller, otto (1831–1915), danish pastor, 193, 204–6. møller, poul martin (1794–1838), danish poet and philosopher, 257, 304, 305, 345. mønster, peter Christian (1797–1870), danish Baptist, 55. münter, Friedrich Christian Carl Henrich (1761–1830), danish bishop, 213. mynster, Jakob peter (1775–1854), danish theologian and bishop, 13, 17, 19, 51, 63, 87, 88, 103, 116, 127–32 passim, 170, 185, 189–94 passim, 198, 201, 202, 218, 232, 233, 237, 246, 250, 251, 257, 267–87, 290–301 passim, 305, 307, 310, 315–19 passim, 327, 335–43 passim, 347–52 passim. mynster, maria elisabeth (1822–1909), Jakob peter mynster’s daughter, 291. nannestad, verner ludvig, 254. neander, Johann august wilhelm (1789– 1850), german theologian, 191. nielsen, michael (1776–1846), principal of the Borgerdydskole, 2, 190.

359

nielsen, rasmus (1809–84), danish philosopher, 6, 64, 65, 79, 161, 180, 199, 201, 236, 244, 247, 248, 295, 346–9 passim. oehlenschläger, adam (1779–1850), danish poet, 213, 305. oldenburg, theodor vilhelm (1805–42), danish pastor, 196. olsen, regine (1822–1904), 31, 183, 198, 203, 292. olshausen, Hermann (1796–1839), german protestant theologian, 154. Ørsted, anders sandøe (1778–1860), danish jurist and statesman, 195. paludan-müller, Frederik (1809–76), danish poet, 64, 65. paul, 66, 69, 105, 201, 323. paulli, Just Henrik voltelen (1809–65), danish pastor, 279, 289–302. pedrin, andreas daniel (1823–91), danish religious author, 53. petersen, lauritz vilhelm (1817–79), 242. plato, 41, 278. plum, niels munk (1880–1957), danish theologian, 268, 269. pontoppidan, erik (1698–1764), danish theologian, 26–30 passim. poole, roger (1939–2003), english literary theorist and Kierkegaard scholar, 239. reitzel, Carl andreas (1789–1853), danish publisher and bookseller, 249. rørdam, peter (1806–83), danish teacher and pastor, 44, 194. rørdam, thomas skat (1832–1909), danish bishop, 204, 205. rudelbach, andreas gottlob (1792–1862), danish theologian, 101, 216, 303–33. rye, olaf (1791–1849), danish general, 155.

360

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

saxtorph, peter (1720–1803), danish pietistic priest, 29. scharling, Carl emil (1803–77), danish theologian, 294. scharling, Carl immanuel (1879–1951), danish bishop, 254–8 passim. schelling, Friedrich wilhelm Joseph von (1775–1854), german philosopher, 17. schiller, Friedrich von (1759–1805), german poet, 305. schjørring, Jens, 255. schleiermacher, Friedrich (1768–1834), german theologian, 41–3, 191, 231, 237, 271, 341. schrempf, Christoph (1860–1944), german theologian, 2. sibbern, Frederik Christian (1785–1872), danish philosopher, 18, 257. socrates, 8, 129, 160, 174, 175, 236, 278. sommer, mogens abraham (1829–1901), danish lay preacher, 168, 299–301 passim. sophocles, 160. spandet, niels møller (1788–1858), danish politician, 313. steffens, Henrik (1773–1845), norwegiandanish philosopher, 18. stewart, Jon, 9, 87, 123, 124, 243, 244, 246, 255. stilling, peter michael (1812–69), danish theologian and philosopher, 79, 349. strauss, david Friedrich (1808–74), german theologian, historian and philosopher, 67, 186. strehlenau, niembsch von, i.e. nicolaus lenau (1802–50), austro-Hungarian poet, 230, 241.

tertullian, 59, 76. thordersen, Helgi guðmundsen (1789– 1867), icelandic bishop, 52. thulstrup, marie mikulová, 254. thulstrup, niels (1924–88), danish theologian, 44, 243, 254, 271. thurah, Christian Hendrik (1830–98), danish pastor, 173, 174. tryde, eggert Christopher (1781–1860), danish theologian and pastor, 161, 335–54. tryde, Holger (1740–1800), danish pastor, 335. tudvad, peter, 44. watkin, Julia (1944–2005), British Kierkegaard scholar, 24, 29, 30, 33, 240. wedel-Jarlsberg, Frederik Christian, baron (1757–1831), danish author, 25, 28. welding, F.p. (1811–94), 198. weltzer, Carl, 226, 327. werder, Karl Friedrich (1806–93), german philosopher and literary critic, 9. wette, wilhelm martin leberecht de (1780– 1849), german theologian, 67. wolff, Christian (1679–1754), german philosopher, 25, 189. zeller, eduard (1814–1908), german philosopher and theologian, 233. zeuthen, Frederik ludvig Bang (1805–74), danish philosopher and theologian, 339.

index of subjects

absolute, the, 3, 257, 279, 341. absurd, the, 58, 59, 65, 69, 76–85 passim, 90–2, actuality, 4, 8, 9. anabaptists, 241. anthropology, 268. apostles’ Creed, 98, 99, 105, 111–15 passim, 121–5 passim, 154, 193, 197, 212, 214, 222, 223, 308. appropriation, 119, 156, 169, 171, 347. approximation, 42, 119, 120, 122, 124, 133, 225. “assistant professor,” see “Privatdocent.” “art is an anticipation of eternal life,” 244. attack on the Church, the, 43, 131–3, 166–9, 172, 182, 184, 202, 236, 251–3, 269–70, 282, 298–9, 320, 323, 327, 330, 351–2. Aufhebung, 243. augsburg Confession, 44, 214, 312. authority, 15, 16, 19, 42, 58, 251, 328. autonomy, 231, 238, 244, 276. baptism, 6, 7, 55–7, 98, 99, 103–7 passim, 110–14 passim, 122, 125, 130, 143, 194, 195, 198, 200, 212, 215, 216, 219, 222, 223, 233, 240, 241, 245, 313. Baptists, 55, 56, 103, 104, 194, 204, 217, 233, 241, 336. being and nothing, 6. belief, see “faith.” Bible, 25–7, 37, 41–8, 50–7 passim, 66–70 passim, 97–100, 104, 113–15, 119, 120, 122, 124, 135, 138, 155, 161, 162, 165, 168, 185, 212, 213, 215, 218, 223–5, 230, 305, 335.

acts of apostles, 106, 197, 319, 351. 1 Corinthians, 202, 323. 2 Corinthians, 199. ephesians, 31. ezra, 161, 162. galatians, 11. Job, 32, 185. John, 66, 68. luke, 69, 324. mark, 117. matthew, 280, 281. new testament, 41. revelation, 230. ruth, 177. thessalonians, 81. Borch’s College, 104. Borgerdyd school in Copenhagen, 2, 29, 190, 213, 335. Borgerdyd school in Christianshavn, 213. Catholicism, 100, 315. Christendom, 7, 37, 45, 126, 166, 169, 183, 184, 251, 295, 297, 298, 323, 329, 335–52 passim. Christianity, 3–8 passim,17, 19, 24, 26, 29–37 passim, 43, 44, 56, 60, 67, 69, 70, 76, 79, 80–3, 96–102 passim, 104–12 passim, 117–19, 126, 127, 130–3, 138, 157, 162, 165–8, 175–9, 183–5, 189, 191, 198, 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 217, 221–6 passim, 234, 243–53 passim, 257, 267, 270–3, 277–82, 294, 295, 298, 300, 311, 313, 316–30 passim, 335–52 passim. Christology, 8, 268, 276, 278. civil marriage, 313–17, 319, 323, 324. comedy, 232, 238, 245.

362

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

communication, 159, 176, 249. direct, 250. indirect, 89, 251. communion, 103, 105, 106, 110–12, 125, 215, 222, 350. Concept, the, 3, 4. conscience, 268, 269, 272, 277, 281, 319, 320, 324, 325. Constitution of 1849, 103, 126, 155, 195, 313, 314, 336, 350. contemporaneity, 111, 121, 124, 223, 224. Corsair, 18, 162, 182, 183, 199, 200, 327. Council of nicaea, 70. Danmark, 156. Dannebroge, 217. Danne-Virke, 106, 155, 168. Danskeren, 109. Dansk Kirketidende, 102, 124–6, 166, 168, 196, 200. democracy, 201, 219, 313, 319, 323. de omnibus dubitandum est, 243. despair, 85, 119, 120, 122, 171, 225. devil, 11, 19, 167, 215. double reflection, 159. doubt, 83, 240, 243, 346. duty, 34–6. enlightenment, 24–6, 30, 96, 108, 120. “erlangen school,” 153–5. “established order, the,” 38, 130, 167, 172, 175, 176, 182, 246, 250, 295, 297, 317–27 passim. eternal, the, 59. eternity, 16, 33, 118, 127, 129, 244, 300, 345. excluded middle, the law of, 276. existence, 31, 33, 37, 108, 113, 159, 160, 177, 178, 185, 243, 248, 256, 329, 345. existing order, the, see “established order, the.” evil, 3–6, 10, 11, 19.

Fædrelandet, 244, 251, 269, 270, 275, 299, 311, 320, 326, 351. faith, 7, 8, 19, 42, 54, 58–60, 62, 65, 69, 75–85 passim, 90, 91, 108, 113, 127, 156, 166, 169, 202, 222, 223, 225, 242, 244, 245, 257, 258, 268, 269, 277–9, and knowledge, 90, 341. freedom, 102–4, 107, 109, 127, 131, 132, 134, 175, 176, 185, 195, 216, 217, 233, 235, 242, 250, 313, 317, 321, of press, 28. French revolution (1789), 28. French revolution (July 1830), 191. genius, 1, 15–19, 136, 168, 177, 178, 182, 191, 225, 344, 349. god-man, 62. “going beyond Hegel,” 241, 242, 252. governance, 182. grace, 27, 34, 110, 273, 281. Hegelianism, 2–12 passim, 19, 63, 87, 90, 92, 159, 161–72 passim, 231, 233, 240–6, 276, 278, 337–52 passim. hermeneutics, 41–6 passim. history, 107, 113, 116, 119, 122–6 passim, 133, 159, 161, 175, 185, 186, 323. humor, 175, 239. idea, absolute, 341. speculative, 232, 234, 342–3. idealism, german, 258. imitation, 111, 126, 130, 176, 183, 251, 279, 293, 297. immortality, 28, 34, 35, 345. incarnation, 69, 76, 79, 80, 91, 92, 186, 276, 277. infinity, 33, 59. inner/outer, 320, 322. Intelligensblade, 6. inwardness, 111, 169, 225, 318, 320, 321. irony, 160, 170, 171, 175, 232, 233, 239.

Index of Subjects Jews, see “Judaism.” Judaism, 69, 70, 122, 130, 161, 162. knight of faith, 76, 78, 83, 90, 91. leveling, 242, 250, 252. logic, 6–10 passim, 19, 163, 164, 231, 237, 341. love, 69, 235, 236. lyceum, 305. Maanedsskrift for Christendom og Historie, 102, 216. martyrdom, 127, 162, 200, 293, 319. matchless discovery, 45, 98–101, 104, 107, 109, 114–20 passim, 222–5 passim, 303, 310. mediation, 5, 6, 17, 234, 243, 244, 257, 275–8. melancholy, 32, 189, 206, 252, 328. metropolitan school in Copenhagen, 213, 215, 304. miracles, 306. moment, the, 16, 19. moravian society, 30. mormonism, 195, 204. mysticism, 23, 232, 233, 238. mythology, 95, 96, 106, 107, 117, 126, 251. neo-rationalism, 61. Den Nordiske Kirketidende, 102, 193, 217. offense, 169, 323, pantheism, 57. paradox, 58, 65, 76–83 passim, 91, 92, 130, 176, 179, 185, 242, 248, 276, 277. passion, 73, 85, 122, 132, 164, 169, 225. pastoral seminary, 268, 292, 335. Perseus, 230, pietism, 24, 29, 30, 38, 189, 211, 216, 267. poetry, 18, 96, 97, 118, 179, 180, 230–2, 244, 246, 251, 304, 305, 340, 345. apocalyptic, 230, 232, 241. Privatdocent, 73, 75, 88.

363

protestantism, 100, 169, 176, 193. rationalism, 63, 98, 99, 101, 104, 185, 186, 191, 214, 231, 267, 268, 276–8, 289, 303, 306. recollection, 278. reflection, 8, 27, 37, 42, 115, 164, 235, 348. reformation, 173–6 passim, 211, 214, 291, 315. regensen, 304. repetition, 111, 156. resurrection, 111, 197. revelation, 1, 5, 10–19 passim, 26, 42, 44, 45, 59, 60, 83, 99, 163–8 passim, 235, 256, 269, 278, 329. romanticism, 28, 96, 304. salvation, 120, 121, 124. scandinavian society, 154. schleswig wars (1848–50; 1864), 109, 155. school of Civic virtue in Copenhagen, see “Borgerdydskolen in Copenhagen.” silence, 158, 202, 273. sin, 3, 5, 10, 27, 69, 257, 278, 280, 281. single individual, the, 176, 318, 329. speculative logic, 341. philosophy, 8, 63, 75, 339. theology, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 50, 51, 56, 57, 62, 71, 89, 92, 187. spirit, 3, 5, 10. stages, 177, 178. “strong Jutlanders,” 28, 30. subjectivity, 3, 4, 6, 10, 115, 225. suffering, 111, 127, 132, 202, 328. supernaturalism, 4, 276–8. system, the, 3, 8, 161, 166, 231, 243, 247, 343, 349, 352. Theologisk Maanedsskrift, 101, 102, 104, 118, 216, 306, 312. Tidsskrift for Litteratur og Kritik, 6. thought and being, 3, 8. transcendental idealism, 17. trinity, 27, 57, 63, 64, 70, 79.

364

Kierkegaard and His Danish Contemporaries

unhappy consciousness, 4. unitarianism, 70, 71. universal and particular, the, 34. university of Berlin, 191.

university of Copenhagen, 2, 7, 24, 29, 41, 50, 154, 193, 232, 239, 268, 308, 337. university of erlangen, 308. university of Kiel, 154, 308.